RATHI GAJENDRAN,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TUTICORIN

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ ायपीठ चेई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Rathi Gajendran,
138J, Ellayarasanendal Road
Near Clubh, Kovilpatti
Thoothukudi-628501. PAN No. BIRPR 3787 H

Vs.
I.T.O.,
Ward-2,
Tuticorin.
Appellant/ Assessee

Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate
Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT.
Date of hearing
16/09/2025
Date of pronouncement
26/09/2025

PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 23/06/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16
as per ground of appeal on record.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs. 54,06,160/-, however, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 26/03/2022 asking the assessee that why notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued in the case of assessee after getting approval from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. No response, however, was received from the assessee and therefore,

2
ITA1910/Chny/2025
Rathi Gajendran Vs ITO notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to file the return of income. The assessee accordingly filed return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 5,67,280/- as shown in the income tax return filed under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also treated entire amount of Rs. 54,06,160/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment in the said property.
4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
5. Now before us, the assessee raised a legal issue that the reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2015-16 is illegal, void and without juri iction and also barred by limitation and also claimed the sufficient opportunities were not provided to the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the genuineness of the said transaction.
6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and found that the legal issue has been raised before this Tribunal for the first time and no such issue was raised before the ld. IT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving adequate

3
ITA1910/Chny/2025
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025
*Ranjan

Copy to:
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. CIT
4. DR
5. Guard File

By order

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai