CHANJIVARAM SHANKER THYAGESH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 13(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 81/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 June 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that he was abroad and therefore unaware of the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte because the assessee failed to participate in the proceedings. The assessee contended that he was abroad during the hearing dates and thus unaware of the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's absence abroad, and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 149,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood

Hearing: 15/06/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.81/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Chanjivaram Shanker Vs. Income Tax Officer, Thyagesh, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: ABQPC7055C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri V. Srinivas, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr-AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 15/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 17/06/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 18/12/2025 which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 15/02/2024 for the AY 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No.81/Hyd/2026 Chanjivaram Shanker Thyagesh vs. ITO

“a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned CIT(A) summarily dismissing the appeal without considering the facts and law already available on record, is erroneous, bad in law and liable to be set aside. b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the leamed CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the Learned Assessing Officer U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the Income tax Act, is invalid, erroneous and bad in law. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to note that the reassessment proceedings and consequential best judgment assessment U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income tax Act are invalid since the assessee has not received the notices U/s. 148A and 148 of 1.T Act, 1961.. d) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to note that the assessment is void ab intio since the reopening proceedings U/s. 148A and 148 were not done under faceless procedure as aper the CBDT notification as judicially held by various High Courts, including Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana and further validated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of dismissal of SLP. e) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to note that the reopening of assessment U/s.147 after three years is barred by limitation U/s.149 of I.T Act 1961, since the alleged escaped income is much below Rs.50 lacs. f) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned assessing officer erred in determining the alleged escaped income in the proceedings U/s. 148A(a) at Rs.66,65,000 based on erroneous facts and figures by considering the deposit of Rs. 27,51,000 twice, thereby vitiating the reassessment proceedings. g) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to note that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the bank deposit of Rs.39,14,000 as unexplained investment U/s.69A of I.T. Act, 1961, ignoring the documentary evidence and explanation rendered by the assessee, and further erred in partly rejecting the evidence by way of confirmation letter from assessee maternal uncle Sri V.K. Sabapathy, who is a non-resident, to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000 out of total amount of Rs. 56,00,000 received on his account as his custodian. h) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in

3 ITA No.81/Hyd/2026 Chanjivaram Shanker Thyagesh vs. ITO charging tax U/s.115BBE of the I.T. Act, though the appellant has provided all the details and source for the credits in the bank account. i) Assuming without admitting that the reassessment proceedings are valid, the learned Assessing officer having assessed the salary income errored in not giving credit for corresponding TDS of Rs.29,168. j) For these or any other ground or grounds of appeal that may be urged during the time of hearing /appeal proceedings.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions, but had not field his return of income for the year under consideration, initiated proceedings under section 148 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 21/03/2022 was issued to the assessee.

3.

Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 15/02/2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.44,30,591/- after making certain additions/disallowances, viz., (i) addition of unexplained cash deposits in savings bank account: Rs.15,28,000/-; (ii) addition of suppressed salary income: Rs.5,16,591/-; (iii) addition of cash deposits in Canara Bank: Rs.18,87,000/-; and (iv) addition of cash deposits in Central Bank of India: Rs.4,99,000/-.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee despite having been afforded 5 opportunities had failed to participate in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, the latter was constrained to proceed with and

4 ITA No.81/Hyd/2026 Chanjivaram Shanker Thyagesh vs. ITO dispose of the appeal vide an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the view taken by the AO in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee had in the course of the assessment proceedings failed to discharge the onus cast upon him with respect to the additions made in his case, upheld the assessment order and dismissed the appeal.

5.

The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

6.

Shri V. Srinivas, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that as the assessee at the relevant point of time when the appeal was taken up for hearing before the CIT(A), i.e., 03/07/2025 to 16/09/2025 had gone abroad, therefore, for the said reason he had remained oblivion of the appellate proceedings and could not take necessary steps for participation in the same. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention that the assessee at the relevant point of time had gone abroad had placed on record a copy of his passport, which revealed that he had remained abroad during the period 11/05/2025 (date of departure) to 09/10/2025 (date of arrival).

7.

We have given thoughtful consideration and find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that as the assessee during the relevant period when the appeal was fixed for hearing before the CIT(A), i.e., from

5 ITA No.81/Hyd/2026 Chanjivaram Shanker Thyagesh vs. ITO 03/07/2025 to 16/09/2025 was not available in India, thus, for the said reason he remained oblivion of the fixation of hearing of the appeal on the respective dates and could neither put up appearance nor given necessary instructions to his counsel for doing the needful. In our view, as there are justifiable reasons resulting the failure on the part of the assessee in participating in the proceedings before the CIT(A), which, thus had resulted to an ex-parte dismissal of the appeal, the matter in all fairness and in the interest of justice merits to be restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to redecide the appeal. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA G.) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 17th June, 2026. OKK / SPS

6 ITA No.81/Hyd/2026 Chanjivaram Shanker Thyagesh vs. ITO

Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Chanjivaram Shanker Thyagesh Flat no 205, Baskara Residency, 12-11-161, Namalgundu, Sitaphalmandi S.O, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana-500061 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order KAMALA Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR KUMAR ORUGANTI Date: 2026.06.17 ORUGANTI 16:17:11 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →