BELMON GUIRIDJA,PONDICHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PONDICHERRY, PONDICHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1282/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 June 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2011-12, despite having earned significant interest income. The Assessing Officer reopened the case, issued notices, and made an addition of Rs. 30,16,162/- as unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellate order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 69,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 04.06.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 19.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In the present appeals, the Registry has reported a delay of 459 days in filing the captioned appeals. We have carefully examined the petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit filed by the assessee. Upon consideration, we are satisfied that the reasons furnished constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing

ITA No 1282/Chny/2026 (AY 2011-12) Belmon Guiridja Vs ITO, W 1 :: 2 :: the appeals. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. It was noticed that the assessee had earned income under the heads Time Deposits and Interest other than Interest on Securities amounting to Rs. 30,16,162/-. Since no return of income had been filed and there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after obtaining the requisite approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry. Consequently, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2018. Despite issuance of statutory notices, the assessee failed to furnish any response. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 144 read with Section 147 of the Act on the basis of material available on record and made an addition of Rs. 30,16,162/- u/s. 69 as unexplained money, resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 22,12,318/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], contending that the Assessing Officer had erred in treating the sum of Rs. 30,16,162/- as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act and in raising a consequential demand of Rs. 22,12,318/-. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 144B of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 19.09.2024, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of the claims made and accordingly upheld the assessment order.

ITA No 1282/Chny/2026 (AY 2011-12) Belmon Guiridja Vs ITO, W 1 :: 3 ::

5.

Being dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal, seeking deletion of the addition primarily on the ground that no proper and effective opportunity of hearing was afforded and that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was rendered without affording the assessee an effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that adherence to the principles of natural justice requires that a reasonable and adequate opportunity be granted before adjudication of any matter. Since no proper notice of hearing and effective opportunity was provided to the assessee, the impugned appellate order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal de novo after granting adequate opportunity of hearing and after duly considering such submissions and evidence as may be furnished by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and participate diligently in the appellate proceedings.

ITA No 1282/Chny/2026 (AY 2011-12) Belmon Guiridja Vs ITO, W 1 :: 4 :: 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 04th day of June 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 04th June, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant 2. '(थ&/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु)/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड,फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →