MEERAN MOHAMED HAKKEM,TIRUPPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

ITA 4170/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 October 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay and non-filing of a condonation petition, without adjudicating the substantive grounds raised by the assessee. The delay was only 36 days, and the assessee had raised specific legal grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147, including issues related to satisfaction under section 151, and also challenged the addition under section 69A, contending that the deposits were from explainable sources/business receipts. These issues go to the root of the assessment. In the interest of substantial justice and to address procedural issues, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee to furnish explanations and evidence. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition or the validity of reassessment proceedings, leaving all issues open for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Meeran Mohamed Hakkem, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case based on information of cash deposits aggregating to Rs.64,12,585/- in the assessee's savings bank account. The assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant year. Despite notices, no return or explanation was filed. The Assessing Officer treated the entire deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment at a total income of Rs.64,12,590/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the grounds of delay (36 days) and the non-filing of a condonation application, without adjudicating the merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal merely on account of a 36-day delay without adjudicating the substantive grounds on merits, particularly when the assessee claimed sufficient cause for the delay? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 249(2) of the Act). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order without appreciating that the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the deposits made by the Appellant as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 69A of the Act). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order without appreciating that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings without valid satisfaction under section 151 of the Act? (Question of law, concerning Section 151 of the Act). Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on a 36-day delay without considering substantive grounds. - There was sufficient cause for the delay, which was neither deliberate nor contumacious. - Important legal and factual issues were raised regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, including the absence/validity of satisfaction under section 151 and non-furnishing of satisfaction. - Substantial issues arose on merits regarding the addition under section 69A, as deposits were attributable to explainable sources including business receipts. Revenue's Contentions: - The appeal before the CIT(A) was admittedly belated. - The assessee had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. - Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(2),Section 151,Section 69A,Section 133(6),Section 288A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 16.09.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 20.05.2026, confirming the assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Meeran Moha

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →