USHA RAJENDHAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CC-2(5), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद" एवं ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम)
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2624 & 2625/Chny/2025
िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2005-06
Usha Rajendhar,
4A/33, Hindi Prachar Saba,
Chennai – 600 017. PAN: AAAPU 5522F
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Central Circle-II(5),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri KG Raghunath, Advocate
IJथ की ओर से /Respondent by :
Shri R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
20.11.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
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.
ITA Nos.2624 & 2625/Chny/2025
Usha Rajendhar
:- 2 -:
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.) 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
ITA Nos.2624 & 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. (एबी टी. वक )
(ABY. T. Varkey)
ाियक सद" / Judicial Member
(जगदीश)
(Jagadish)
लेखा सद" /Accountant Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 28th November, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA Nos.2624 & 2625/Chny/2025
Usha Rajendhar
:- 4 -:
आदेश क ितिलप अेषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF