IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, TRICHY, TRICHY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity for compliance, especially considering the short notice period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a denovo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust, failed to file its income tax return. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after discovering cash deposits and interest income. The assessment was completed ex-parte with substantial additions.
What were the issues?
Whether sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee for compliance before passing an ex-parte assessment order. Whether principles of natural justice were followed in issuing notices and providing time for compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 18.06.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 21.03.2023.
The assessee is a trust and has not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. Based on the information available, the A.O found that there were cash deposits of Rs.78,11,200/- in the assessee’s bank account with Canara Bank and interest income of Rs.1,06,530/-. Since no return of income was filed, the A.O reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O completed the assessment ex-parte u/s. 144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs.79,17,730/-, as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued as well as the details called for. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, upholding the order of the A.O as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued.
The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) contended that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued three notices allowing only three days time for compliance and dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity. It was further submitted that the assessee is a trust and that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte with substantial additions. Therefore, the Ld. A.R prayed that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessment order in this case has been passed ex-parte by making addition of Rs. 79,17,730/-. The Ld. CIT(A) grated only three days time for making the compliance.
Therefore, 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 A.O for denovo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and to furnish complete details in support of its claim for fresh adjudication. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th day of October, 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. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026