SHANMUGAM VAJIRAM,CHENNAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NON-CORP WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1627/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 June 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices from the CIT(A) due to an incorrect email ID being used. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their income on a presumptive basis. The Assessing Officer made significant additions, which were confirmed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-response. The assessee claims they did not receive the notices from the CIT(A) as they were sent to an incorrect email ID.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte is valid when the assessee did not receive the notices due to an incorrect email address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 30.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2.

The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of providing support services for arranging loans. The assessee filed the return of income

ITA No.1627/Chny/2026 Shanmugam Vajiram :- 2 -:

for AY 2020-21 on 30.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 8,56,070/- on presumptive basis u/s. 44AB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The A.O called on the assessee to furnish various details and after considering submissions of the assessee assessed the income at Rs. 69,08,320/- after making various additions/disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the A.O ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the notices by the CIT(A) have been sent to the wrong e mail ID which does not belong to the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the e-mail ID to which the notices were sent belongs to the auditor of the assessee who is no longer engaged in providing professional services. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee therefore was not aware of the notices sent and hence did not appear. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with the direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.1627/Chny/2026 Shanmugam Vajiram :- 3 -:

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 01st day of June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 01st June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु!/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.06.04 17:02:38 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →