AALYAR HAYATH BASHA,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-2,, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3735/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of medical reasons supported by evidence. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders. The assessee's main plea was non-receipt of notices due to internet issues. Since the entire addition of Rs. 1,04,71,500/- was made without hearing the assessee, and the assessee was allegedly unaware of the proceedings, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to file written submissions and relevant documents to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposit, and the AO was instructed to pass an assessment order after hearing the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aalyar Hayath Basha, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 212 days, which the Tribunal condoned on medical grounds supported by an affidavit and certificates. The assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte because the assessee failed to respond to four notices, allegedly due to internet glitches. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed a best judgment assessment under Section 144, adding the entire cash deposits of Rs. 1,04,71,500/- under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal by the assessee, considering the medical reasons provided. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, given that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-response to notices. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was due to internet glitches preventing awareness of the notices. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax to seek one more opportunity before the AO. The assessee also submitted an affidavit undertaking to appear before the AO if given a chance. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through the Additional CIT, argued against granting another opportunity to the assessee, citing the assessee's non-participation before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY. S

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commisssion of Income Tax/NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AY’) 2018-19 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Before us, assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay for filing of the appeal before this Tribunal along with an affidavit as well as medical certificates to show that assessee due to medical reasons was not able to entrust the matter to a professional to appear on behalf of him

ITA 3735 /Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Aalyar Hayath Basha :: 2 :: and hence, prayed for condoning the delay of 212 days in filing of the appeal. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit supported by medical evidence, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Therefore, we proceed to examine the ground of appeal raised before us.

3.

At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) brought to our notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on the ground that assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices. In this regard, he brought to our notice that the due to glitches in the internet, the assessee wasn’t aware of the notice issued to him, and therefore prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, he brought to our notice that the AO has passed “best judgment assessment” u/s.144 of the Act by adding the entire cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,04,71,500/- u/s.69A of the Act. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216., he prayed for one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer (AO).

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee, since the assessee never participated before the Assessing Officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Heard both the parties and perused the records. The main plea of the assessee is that the assessee could not participate before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-information regarding notices issued by the respective authorities may be due to glitches in the internet. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the AO/Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order qua the assessee. AO is noted to have added the entire cash deposit to the tune of Rs.1,04,71,500/-/- deposited in his SBI bank account. Since,

ITA 3735 /Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Aalyar Hayath Basha :: 3 :: the entire addition had been fastened without hearing the assessee and the assessee was in the dark about the assessment proceedings, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has filed an affidavit undertaking to appear before the AO if given an opportunity. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de- nova assessment. Assessee is directed to file written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposit without fail and the AO to pass assessment order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced on the 12th day of October 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/-

(प�ावती .एस) (एबी टी. वक�) (PADMAVATHY. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 12th October, 2026. YS 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 YASHVIR Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.10.16 14:55:41 +05'30'

ITA 3735 /Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Aalyar Hayath Basha :: 4 ::

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →