PADMAVATHY,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-2(1), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3752/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings and provided explanations to the AO. Giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee, considering the possibility of internet glitches causing non-receipt of notices, and acknowledging the assessee's past conduct before the AO, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to file written submissions and relevant documents before the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal on the grounds of non-compliance with five notices. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added Rs. 40,40,172/- representing cash deposited in the assessee's bank account, treating it as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that she had provided explanations with supporting documents to the AO and that non-compliance before the CIT(A) was due to not receiving the notices, possibly due to internet glitches. The assessee sought one more opportunity before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the grounds of non-compliance with notices, without adjudicating the appeal on merits, when the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to internet issues? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the dismissal by the CIT(A) was on procedural grounds and not on merits. The assessee claimed to have not received the notices from the CIT(A) due to internet glitches and therefore could not respond. The assessee had previously provided explanations and supporting documents to the AO regarding the cash deposits. The assessee sought a fresh opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) or the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 27.05.2026 for AY 2019-20 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act).

ITA 3752 /Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Padmavathy :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee not on merits, but on the ground that assessee didn’t comply to his five (5) notices. According to the assessee, in this case AO has added the cash deposited in assessee’s bank account i.e. Bank of Baroda to the tune of Rs.40,40,172/- alleging failure on the part of the assessee to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits. Hence, the AO treated the entire cash deposit as unexplained u/s.69A of the Act by passing the assessment order on 26.03.2025. According to the assessee, she has explained the nature and source of the cash deposit with supporting documents vide response dated 06.03.2025 and 08.03.2025 copy of which is found placed at Page 6 to 13 of the PB. According to the Ld. AR of the assessee, before the first appellate authority the assessee didn’t respond to his notices, because assessee didn’t receive any notices, may be due to the glitches in the internet. Therefore, the assessee being in the dark could not respond and hence prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The assessee is noted to have participated in the assessment proceedings and explained the nature and source of the cash deposits. Hence, assessee does not gain by not participating before the first appellate authority provided, she was aware of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It is common knowledge that there are glitches in the internet because of which the notices have gone to spam account also.

ITA 3752 /Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Padmavathy :: 3 :: 4. Hence, giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee, and considering the past conduct of assessee before AO, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal after giving proper opportunity to the assessee; and the assessee is directed to file written submission and relevant documents in support of her grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as undertaken before us.

5.

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

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 15:13:28 +05'30'

ITA 3752 /Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Padmavathy :: 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 →