SENGOTTAYAN SELVAKUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAMAKKAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders because the assessee failed to respond to notices and furnish details. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 34,00,000/- in his bank account but did not file a return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and made an addition under Section 69A of the Act due to the failure to explain the source of funds. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A) and whether the ex-parte assessment order should be set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 30.01.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 17.12.2018.
The assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 34,00,000/- in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd., Namakkal but has not filed return of income for the relevant A.Y. The AO therefore reopened assessment, and passed order ex-parte u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, making addition u/s. 69A of the Act at Rs.34,00,000/-, as the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for transactions reflected in his bank account. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.
1. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as the assessee had failed to comply with the notices issued and did not file any specific details regarding cash deposits in his bank account.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the assessee has contended that adequate opportunity was not provided to furnish the required details either before the A.O. or before the Ld. CIT(A). It was therefore prayed that, in the interests of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate the assessee’s his claim before the A.O.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued and failed to furnish requisite details in respect of the cash deposits made in his bank account. It is further observed that the assessee has been negligent in pursuing the matter both before the A.O and the Ld.
CIT(A). However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with all the notices issued by the A.O and furnish all relevant details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 04th day of December, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026