MASILAMANI KAVITHA, REP. BY MASILAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXATION WARD-1(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before it against the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act was not maintainable. The correct appellate authority was the Ld. CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-resident, sold immovable property but did not file a return of income. The AO reopened the assessment and proposed an addition of Rs. 6,00,000. The assessee failed to accept the addition or file objections with the DRP. Consequently, the AO passed the final assessment order including the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144C(3) is maintainable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144C,Section 144C(1),Section 144C(2),Section 144C(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M :
Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 against the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-1(2), Chennai, u/s. 147 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 21.05.2025.
The Assessing a Non-Resident and has sold immovable property but has not filed the return of income. The A.O. reopened the assessment and proposed addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the draft assessment order dated 20.03.2025 u/s. 144C(1) . The A.O as per the scheme of the Act , called upon the assessee to either accept the proposed addition or to file objections before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within 30 days of receipt of the draft assessment order. However, the assessee neither conveyed acceptance of the proposed addition in full nor furnished any evidence of having filed objections before the DRP within the stipulated period prescribed u/s. 144C(2) of the Act. Consequently, the A.O. passed the final assessment order u/s. 144C(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act making an addition of Rs.6,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal against the said assessment order.
We heard both the parties .This appeal has been filled against assessment passed by the A.O. u/s. 147 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act. The appeal against the above order lies before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable, with liberty to the assessee to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non-maintainable.
Order pronounced on 29th day of August, 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 Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
