USHA RAJENDHAR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2624/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 November 2025AY 2001-02Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without considering the merits. One more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present her case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions based on sundry creditors and incentive payments. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without delving into the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 20.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid two appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AYs) 2001-02 & 2005-06 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Chennai-19 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] both dated 05.08.2024.

2.

The facts in both the appeals of the assessee are identical and issues are common hence, we proceed to pass a common order.

1.

1. & 2625/Chny/2025 Usha Rajendhar :- 2 -: 3. The A.O, in the order passed u/s. 153C of the Act, made an addition on account of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 31,99,997/- and incentive payments of Rs. 42,90,000/- for A.Y 2001-02 and Rs.2,16,51,476 in A.Y 2005-06 . Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices, which remained un-complied with by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution.

4.

At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R.)

1.

submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non- prosecution without discussing the issues on merits. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee now undertakes that she is in possession of all relevant records and is willing to fully cooperate in the proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate her case before the A.O.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R.), on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution without & 2625/Chny/2025 Usha Rajendhar :- 3 -: discussing the issues on merits. However, the Ld. A.R. has now explained the reasons for such non-compliance and has assured that the assessee is ready to submit the required information. Considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate her cases. Accordingly, we remit the matters back to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish all relevant details for proper consideration. In view of the above, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →