PERIASAMY SHANKAR,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2447/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 November 2025AY 2016-174 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence in pursuing the matter before the AO and the Addl. CIT(A), decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that both the AO and the Addl. CIT(A) had passed orders ex-parte because the assessee failed to explain the sources for the amount of Rs. 10,50,000/-. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a denovo assessment. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices and furnish relevant details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Periasamy Shankar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Addl. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO made an addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- under Section 69B of the Act, citing the purchase of a property for Rs. 64 lakhs, while its guideline value was Rs. 78,44,443/-. The assessee's appeal before the Addl. CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO, considering the Addl. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Addl. CIT(A) did not decide the matter on its merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee requested one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the AO. Revenue's Contention: The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad [hereinafter “Addl. CIT(A)”] dated 28.08.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 30.12.2019.

1.

assessee along with three other persons has purchased a property for a total consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs, the guideline value of which was Rs. 78,44,443/-. The A.O in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- u/s. 69B of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. Addl. CIT(A).

However, the Addl. Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued.

3.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter on merits and therefore, in the interest of justice, it was prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the A.O and Ld. Addl. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte as the assessee failed to explain the sources for an amount of Rs.10,50,000/-. It is also noted that the assessee has been Periasamy Shankar :- 3 -: negligent in pursuing the matter both before the A.O and the Ld. Addl. 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.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →