ARUMUGAM KUMAR,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO WARD 1, TIRUVALLUR

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
Arumugam Kumar,
104, 8th Street, Kakalur Ind
Estate S.O., 29, Kakkalur,
Tiruvallur-602003. PAN No. ALZPK 6523 A Vs.
I.T.O.,
Ward-1,
Tiruvallur.
Appellant/ Assessee

Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri S. Girishkumar, 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 30/06/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18
as per ground of appeal on record.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration as per the information flagged under Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA Portal.
It was noticed that the assessee had sold immovable property amounting to Rs.
78,75,000/-. Further the assessee had received salary of Rs. 5,90,662/-. The case of the assessee was, therefore, reopened under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 28/02/2024. Subsequently, notice

2
ITA1922/Chny/2025
Arumugam Kumar Vs ITO under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 27/05/2024 declaring total income of Rs. 2,90,230/- . However, the assessee did not respond to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on 09/10/2024. The Assessing Officer, therefore, computed the income of the assessee as taken the entire sale consideration of Rs.
78,75,000/- as capital gains and added to the total income of the assessee.
Further the Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs. 5,90,662/- as undisclosed salary income.
3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) belatedly by 30 days. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay and not decided the appeal on merit.
4. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal.
5. During the appellate proceedings before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merit.
6. The ld. Sr.DR, on the other hand, justified the action of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee does not deserve any leniency.

3
ITA1922/Chny/2025
The assessee is also directed to provide all documents/evidences to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) and submit all the relevant documents. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

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