THAMBU SAMI, REP. BY L/H MR. SENTHIL KUMAR,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-2., CUDDALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 986/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 September 2025AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the AO for denovo assessment. This was done to provide the legal heirs of the deceased assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence regarding the cash deposits, considering principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on information of a large cash deposit in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed the deposit was from the sale of agricultural land.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed against a deceased person is valid and whether the legal heirs should be granted an opportunity to prove the source of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.986/Chny/2025
C.O No.68/Chny/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'सी' ायपीठ, चेई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI

माननीय ी मनुकु मार िगर, ाियक सद एवं माननीय अिमताभ शु'ा, लेखा सद के सम)

BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON'BLE AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.986/Chny/2025

C.O No.68/Chny/2025 (Arises in ITA No.986/Chny/2025) िनधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Thambu Sami, Represented by Legal Heir Mr. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2,

Senthil Kumar,

32, Nadu Street, Villiyanallur,

Chidambaram,

Cuddalore – 608 501. [PAN: AMGPT 6351D]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant) ( यथ/Respondent/Cross

Objector)

Cuddadlore.

अपीलाथ/ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate. 12थ/ की ओर से /Respondent/Cross : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Objector by

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH:

The appeal being ITA No.986/Chny/2025 is filed by the assessee, whereas C.O No.68/Chny/2025 is filed by the Revenue are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

(Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 11.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The registry has noted delay of 460 days in filing the appeal and delay of 73 days in filing Cross Objection ('CO' in short). Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the assessee and Revenue, we condone the respective delays and treat the reasons as 'sufficient cause' and admit the appeal and CO for adjudication.

3.

Brief facts are as under:

The assassin did not file his return of income for the AY 2011-12. The AO had information that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in the form of cash deposit in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Puducherry branch during FY 2010-11. The case was reopened after obtaining prior approval from the Pr.CIT Puducherry and notice u/s.148 of the act was issued on 22.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s.148, the assessee has filed his ITR on 15.05.2019 declaring total income of Rs.59,403/-. During the assessment proceedings, it has been observed from the bank account of the assessee that the assessee has made cash deposit amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- on 29.09.2010. The assessee has claimed that he

![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)

has sold his agricultural land for total consideration of Rs.2,90,40,000/ out of which Rs.2,00,00,000/- received in cash and Rs.90,40,000/ received through DD. The assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 29.11.2019 at total income of Rs.2,00,59,403/- after making an addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account of cash deposit as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

Assessee further challenged the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal on merits.

Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee who was 94 years old, died during the appellate proceedings and ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on dead person. He further contended that in the factual matrix of the case, the matter may be remanded back to the AO for filling of proper evidence/documents if any, to substantiate his explanation regarding cash deposits in ICICI Bank A/c and for denovo assessment. The ld. Sr.DR vehemently objected to the prayer of the ld.counsel for the assessee. She further contended that the Assessment Year in question is concerned with AY 2011-12 and the documents may not be available being old case. Hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5.

Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the substantial cause and principle of natural justice, we grant one opportunity of hearing to the assessee before the AO. We also find that during the assessment proceedings, the AO has not put any query to the assessee regarding the claim of capital gain exemptions. We feel that in this peculiar case, the assessee is required proper opportunity to prove the source for the cash deposits. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of AO for denovo assessment on legal heirs of the assessee after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the legal heirs. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with all evidence and documents regarding cash deposits in ICICI bank account, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the denovo assessment as per law. The ld. counsel, who appeared also assured the bench that he will ensure that he and LRs of the assessee will prosecute this case diligently before the AO. All the legal issues, if any, are kept open.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose whereas the Cross objection of the revenue is become infructuous.

Order pronounced on 10th September, 2025 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (अिमताभ शु'ा) (Amitabh Shukla) लेखा सदय /Accountant Member

(मनुकु मार िगर) (Manu Kumar Giri) ाियक सद / Judicial Member

चेई Chennai: िदनांक Dated : 10/09/2025

EDN, Sr. P.S

आदेश क ितिलप अेषत/Copy to:

- 1. अपीलाथ/Appellant - 2. थ/Respondent - 3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. - 4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR - 5. गाडफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →