MANIKADAR VASIM RAJA,KUMBAKONAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders because the assessee failed to furnish evidence regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 77,64,529/- in their bank account. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in pursuing the matter before both the AO and CIT(A). However, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the AO. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the AO for a denovo assessment. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices and furnish relevant details. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Manikadar Vasim Raja, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 and 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and passed ex-parte orders assessing total income at Rs. 77,64,529/- for AY 2017-18, due to unexplained cash deposits of this amount in the assessee's bank account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the addition, also passing an ex-parte order as the assessee failed to provide specific details. The facts for AY 2020-21 are identical. The appeals arise from the orders of the CIT(NFAC), Delhi, dated 11.07.2025 and 14.07.2025, respectively.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal should grant the assessee a further opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, given that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to explain cash deposits and provide details. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the AO provided only three days to respond to the show-cause notice before passing an ex-parte order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee requested one more opportunity to substantiate their case. Revenue's Contention: The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 & 2020-21 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 11.07.2025 & 14.07.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 27.12.2024 & 30.12.2024, respectively.
& 2457/Chny/2025 Manikadar Vasim Raja :- 2 -:
The facts in both the appeals of the assessee are identical and issues are common hence, we proceed to pass a common order. For 2017-18 as lead case.
3. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs 77,64,529/- in his bank account maintained with City Union Bank, 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 of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.77,64,529/-, 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. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as the assessee did not file any specific details regarding cash deposits in the bank account.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the A.O. had given only three days’ time to respond to the show-cause notice and thereafter passed the order ex parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)
1. also dismissed the appeal ex parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, & 2457/Chny/2025 Manikadar Vasim Raja :- 3 -: it was prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case.
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 and Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte as the assessee failed to furnish evidence regarding cash deposits made in his bank account of Rs. 77,64,529. It is noted 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.
& 2457/Chny/2025 Manikadar Vasim Raja :- 4 -:
: 6. We find that an identical facts on ex-parte order is there in also, and accordingly, our adjudication in mutatis mutandis applies therein as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we remit this matter also back to the file of the A.O for de novo assessment in accordance with law.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 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 →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026