KARTHIKEYAN VANITHA,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 815/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 April 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's readiness to file evidence and the respondent's no objection, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is granted liberty to file supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee failed to file a return or comply with statutory notices. No compliance was made before the first appellate authority either.

What were the issues?

Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to present evidence for additions made under Section 69A, given the lack of compliance at earlier stages.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 139,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आदेश/O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 29.12.2025 by the ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC],

Delhi [‘ld.CIT(A)’ in short] for Assessment Year 2020-21 & 2021-22

respectively.

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.815 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.815 No.815 & 816/Chny/2026 No.815 816/Chny/2026 816/Chny/2026 816/Chny/2026

2.

Since the issues raised in both the appeals are similar, based on

same identical facts with regards to sole assessee, therefore, upon

hearing both the parties and with their consent we proceed to hear both

the appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of

convenience.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the Assessing Officer [‘AO’ in short]

determined the income of Rs.1,15,30,072/- vide his order dated

16.12.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act,

1961 [‘the Act’ in short]. According to the AO, assessee is an individual,

no return of income was filed under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the

Act. Having found information regarding cash deposits in the bank

account, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. As it appear from the

record, no compliance was made in response to 148 as well as statutory

notices u/s. 142(1) as well as show cause notice. Thereby, the AO

determined the income of the assessee in the absence of any submission

during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, on perusal of the

impugned order, we note that no compliance was made by the assessee

before the first appellate authority which is evident from Para no. 5 to 6 of

the impugned order.

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.815 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.815 No.815 & 816/Chny/2026 No.815 816/Chny/2026 816/Chny/2026 816/Chny/2026

4.

The ld.AR, Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate, submits that the assessee

is ready to file all evidences before the AO and prayed to remand the

matter to the file of the AO by recording the undertaking that the

assessee shall appear before the ld.CIT(A) without fail.

5.

The ld.DR, Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT, reported no

objection in remanding the matter to the file of the AO.

6.

Having heard both the parties, it is noted that the AO made additions

u/s. 69A of the Act, wherein, no assistance was before the AO as well as

the ld.CIT(A), thereby considering the submissions of the ld.AR and

undertaking on behalf of the assessee, we deem it proper to remand the

matter to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration. The assessee is

liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, grounds

raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 815 &

816/Chny/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. 29th April, 2026 at Chennai. Order pronounced on

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

4 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.815 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.815 No.815 & 816/Chny/2026 No.815 816/Chny/2026 816/Chny/2026 816/Chny/2026

Chennai, Dated: 29.04.2026 JPV/-

आदेशकी'ितिलिपअ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.04 10:43:09 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →