GANESAN NADIMUTHU,TRICHY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4246/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 October 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the AO under Section 148 and Section 142(1), nor responded to show cause notices. It was also evident from the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee had failed to comply with five notices issued during the first appellate proceedings. Accepting the Revenue's submission, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to raise any available legal grounds and file supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of limitation on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ganesan Nadimuthu, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed with a delay of 98 days, which the Tribunal condoned after finding the reasons to be bonafide. The Assessing Officer (AO) had determined the assessee's income at Rs. 51,87,365/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance. The assessee had not filed a return of income in response to a notice under Section 148, nor complied with notices under Section 142(1) or show cause notices before the AO. Similarly, the assessee failed to comply with five notices issued by the CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation and consequently invalid, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The learned AR argued that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. This issue was raised before the CIT(A) but not considered due to the assessee's absence. The assessee relied on various orders of the Chennai ITAT Benches, specifically citing the case of Anushree Nallapaneni in ITA Nos. 806 to 808/Chny/2026, to argue that the notice is invalid and the reassessment proceedings should be quashed. Revenue's contention: The learned DR opposed the assessee's submissions and prayed for the matter to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,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: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 26.10.2026

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. रघुनाथा, 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. 4246/Chny/2026 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ganesan Nadimuthu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.21, Bharathiyar Street, Ward 1(1), Townstation Road, Trichy. Tiruchirapalli – 620 002. [PAN: AXTPG-2359-N] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. S. Anandh, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.10.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2026 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 23.02.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16.

:-2-: ITA No: 4246/Chny/2026

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 98 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 98

days condoned.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO determined the income of the

assessee at Rs.51,87,365/- as per the provisions u/s. 69A of the Act.

The same was challenged before the ld.CIT(A), wherein the said appeal

was dismissed for non-compliance which is evident from para no.4 of the impugned order.

4.

Before us, the ld.AR, Shri. S. Anandh, Advocate, submits that the

notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation which was also

raised before the ld.CIT(A), but not considered as there was no

representation on behalf of the assessee. He submits that the said issue is covered by the various orders of Chennai ITAT Benches and drew our

attention to the order of this Tribunal in the case of Anushree

Nallapaneni in ITA Nos. 806 to 808/Chny/2026 and prayed to declare

:-3-: ITA No: 4246/Chny/2026

the said notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act as invalid and quash the

consequential reassessment proceedings as bad under law.

5.

The ld.DR, Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT, opposed the

submissions of the ld.AR and prayed to remand the matter to the file of

the ld.CIT(A).

6.

Having heard both the parties, we note that AO issued notice dated

13.04.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act, which is evident from para no.2 of the

assessment order. On perusal of the said para, we note that there was

no compliance by the assessee by way of filing of return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, no compliance in response to

notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, further no response to show cause notices.

Therefore, it is clear there was no compliance by the assessee before

the AO. Coming to the impugned order as was stated by the ld.AR, it is

evident from para no.4 of the impugned order that there was no

compliance to the five notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, we accept the submissions of the

ld.DR and we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the

ld.CIT(A) for his fresh consideration to decide the grounds of appeal

:-4-: ITA No: 4246/Chny/2026

raised by the assessee in accordance with law. It is open to the assessee to raise any legal ground available under law and the assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26.10.2026 JPV 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

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.10.28 09:39:06 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →