SIVARAJ HOLIDAY INN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALEM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3653/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 October 2026AY 2024-253 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that there was no representation from the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and no compliance was made despite four notices issued. However, considering the undertaking given by the assessee's authorized representative to furnish all details and represent the case before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of its claims. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The principle is that where an assessee undertakes to provide all necessary documentation and representation, and the revenue has no objection, a procedural lapse leading to an ex parte order can be rectified by remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sivaraj Holiday Inn Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2024-25. The Assessing Officer (AO) had determined the total income at Rs.91,49,501/- against the returned income of Nil, making additions under Sections 69C and 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who confirmed the AO's order ex parte. The assessee's representative before the ITAT requested one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) with all details and documentary evidence. The revenue had no objection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to prosecute its case before the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds of non-representation and non-compliance with notices, considering the undertaking to furnish all details and documentary evidence. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that one more opportunity should be granted to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) and is ready to furnish all necessary details and documentary evidence. Revenue's Contention: The revenue reported no objection to the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 15.10.2026Pronounced: 27.10.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3653/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Sivaraj Holiday Inn Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The DCIT, No.26/3, Junction Main Road Opp. Circle-1(1), Sona College, Salem, Salem. 636005. [PAN: AAOCS0187M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. S. R. Srikrishna, CA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.10.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2024-25.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO completed the assessment by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.91,49,501/- as against the returned income of Nil, inter alia, making additions under Sections 69C and 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the AO ex parte of assessee.

2 I.T.A. No.3653 /Chny/2026

3.

The Ld. AR Mr. S. R. Srikrishna, CA submits that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to prosecute its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is ready to furnish all details along with relevant documentary evidence during the first appellate proceedings.

4.

The Ld. DR Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT reported no objection.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we note that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), and no compliance was made in response to the four notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), as is evident from paragraph No. 2.3 of the impugned order. However, considering the undertaking given by the Ld. AR that the assessee is ready to furnish all the details and represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 27th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 27.10.2026 MM/-

3 I.T.A. No.3653 /Chny/2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

MANIS Digitally signed by MANISH H MISHRA Date: MISHRA 2026.10.30 17:43:06 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →