KINGSLY LAZARUS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(2), TAMBARAM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned online appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 12.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The appellant is a theological counselor also doing travel business. Upon information that the appellant paid cash of Rs 25,21,310/- in order to foreclose a car long issued by M/s HDFC Bank and return of income filed by the appellant on 25.10.2013 claiming the total income of Rs.2,23,101/-, and no response of the

ITA No 605/Chny/2026 (AY 2012-13) Kingsly Lazarus Vs ITO NCW 22(2) :: 2 :: notices issued, the AO made additions Rs.8,37,600/-under the head income from profession, Rs.1,80,000/- under the head ‘Income from house property’, and Rs.25,21,310/- under the head ‘Income from Other sources’ and treated the income of Rs.37,62,011/- as undisclosed income. 3. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) sought quashing of assessment proceeding on account of reasons that the AO failed to appreciate the facts submitted in respect of the deduction u/s 24 against the addition under the Income from House Property. However, the Ld. CIT(A), vide its order dated 12.11.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance of the notices issued during the appellate proceedings and confirmed the order of AO. 4. Further aggrieved with the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and sought an opportunity to file the relevant/necessary documents in reply to notices. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex- parte impugned order without giving proper opportunity of hearing. Hence, the appellant failed to furnish the supporting evidence in support of grounds of appeal. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find that AO has passed the assessment order ex-parte u/s.144/147 of the Act. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to substantiate the issue under consideration.

ITA No 605/Chny/2026 (AY 2012-13) Kingsly Lazarus Vs ITO NCW 22(2) :: 3 :: Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment. The AO shall afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to diligently prosecute the assessment and actively participate in the assessment proceedings. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 19th day of May 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 19th May, 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