SUBRAMANIAN PRABHAKARAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUNCHENGODE

The assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The A.O on the basis of the informatiion that the assessee had made cash deposits in his bank account maintained with InduInd Bank of Rs. 71,26,450/-, but has not filed the return of income reopened the assessment. The A.O thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 54,42,952/- as the assessee had failed to file the return of income as well as the details called for. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 54,42,952/-, observing that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of 10% of transport receipts, as the assessee was unable to link the cash deposits in the bank with the transport receipts.

At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R.) for the assessee submitted that there was no order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act passed in the assessee’s case before issuing notice u/s 148 as the order uploaded is in the name of another assessee, namely Shri Sellappan Krishnamoorthy. The Ld. A.R. further contended that there was a double addition in respect of the same cash deposits of Subramanian Prabhakaran

The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. A.R has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, contending that the order uploaded pertains to a different assessee, namely Shri Sellappan Krishnamoorthy. The Ld. CIT(A) had observed that though the assessee made such a claim, no copy of the said order under section 148A(d) of the Act was produced before him. The assessee has now filed a copy of the said order before us which needs to be examined. Subramanian Prabhakaran

We further note that the assessment has been completed ex- parte, as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued either by the Juri ictional A.O. or by the Faceless Assessment Unit. Since both the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders without proper participation of the assessee and without examining the matter on merits, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be reconsidered. 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 fully comply with the notices issued by the A.O. and furnish all relevant details in support of his claim for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th day of October, 2025 at Chennai. (जॉज जॉज के) (George George K) उपा / Vice President (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सदय सदय सदय सदय /Accountant Member चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 30th October, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S Subramanian Prabhakaran