Dhanasekaran Ramasamy vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
TCA/245/2025HC Madras11 December 2025Bench: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Court observed that the assessee's framed questions of law were predicated on the submission that the case was one of re-assessment. However, the undisputed facts were that the assessee had not filed any return of income. The assessment was initiated only after information was received from the DIT (I & CI), Salem, regarding the assessee's contribution to property purchases through a partnership firm. The Court further noted that the questions of law now being raised were not even presented for consideration before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dhanasekaran Ramasamy, is the appellant and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), Salem, is the respondent. The assessment year in question is 2013-14. The appeal is against the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai. The assessee had not filed a return of income. Information was received from the DIT (I & CI), Salem, indicating that the assessee contributed Rs.74,35,000/- and had a share in the purchase of two properties on behalf of a partnership firm, in which the assessee claimed to be a partner. Consequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued, and an assessment was carried out.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration when the assessee's arguments are based on the premise of a re-assessment, while the facts indicate that no return was filed and the assessment was initiated based on information received regarding undisclosed contributions and property purchases. Assessee's Contention: The assessee's framed questions of law proceed on the submission that the case involves re-assessment. (No specific authorities or precedents are mentioned in the judgment for the assessee's arguments). Revenue's Contention: The revenue implicitly argues that the assessment was a valid initiation under Section 148 due to the non-filing of return and subsequent information received, and that the assessee's framing of questions based on re-assessment is factually incorrect. (No specific authorities or precedents are mentioned in the judgment for the revenue's arguments). The revenue also contends that the questions of law raised were not even raised before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA No.245 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN TCA No.245 of 2025 Dhanasekaran Ramasamy .. Appellant -vs- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), No.3, Gandhi Road, Hasthampatti, Salem Tamilnadu 636 007. .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the

order

dated

04.08.2025

passed

in I.T.A.No.580/CHNY/2025 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2013- 14. For Appellant : M/s.G.Vardini Karthik For Respondent : Mr.V.Mahalingam and Mr.P.E.R.Mangala Suvigaran Stdg. Counsel Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 02:03:59 pm ) TCA No.245 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) All the questions of law, which have been framed by the assessee, proceed on the submission that it is a case of re- assessment, whereas the facts of the case, which are not disputed, are that the assessee has not filed any return of income and it was only when an information was received from the office of the DIT (I & CI), Salem, that the assessee has contributed an amount of Rs.74,35,000/- and has a share in the purchase of two properties on behalf of the partnership firm, in which assessee claimed to be one of the partners, that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued and assessment was carried out. The questions of law, which have now been raised, were not even raised for consideration before the Tribunal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 02:03:59 pm ) TCA No.245 of 2025 Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 11.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra To 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), No.3, Gandhi Road, Hasthampatti, Salem Tamilnadu 636 007. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench, Chennai. Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 02:03:59 pm ) TCA No.245 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. (sra) TCA No.245 of 2025 11.12.2025 Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 02:03:59 pm )

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →