APARAJITHA DYNAMIC SYNERGIES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE,, MADURAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic situation, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the claim before the AO. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for denovo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in wholesale and retail trading, declared 'Nil' income for AY 2018-19. The AO added Rs. 1,60,20,165 by disallowing deduction under Section 80JJAA. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, noting no submissions or evidence were provided.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee deserves an opportunity to substantiate the claim due to Covid-19 pandemic impact, despite prior non-compliance?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 06.02.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 20.04.2021.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trading. He filed his return of income on 29.09.2018, declaring total income at ‘Nil’. The A.O, in the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs. 1,60,20,165/- by disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act (Chapter VI-A). Aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that the assessee had not made any submission or produced evidence to substantiate the claim, both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that although the assessee cited the difficulties faced during the Covid-19 pandemic as a reason for non-compliance, no supporting material or justification was furnished even before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the disallowance made by the A.O was confirmed.
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) for the assessee submitted that due to the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic situation, the assessee was unable to properly respond to notices or furnish supporting evidence during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee to substantiate his claim before the A.O.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the disallowance was upheld solely on the ground that the assessee had not made any submission or produced evidence during the appellate proceedings. Before us, the Ld. A.R reiterated that the assessee could not comply due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In the interest of justice, and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate the claim 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 adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details and supporting evidence for proper adjudication of the claim.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 08th day of October, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026