RAVI PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-15(1), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी अिमताभ शुा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1418/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2012-13
Ravi Prabhakar,
Door No.8A, Royal Enclave,
Injambakkam, ECR Road,
Near Barun Dental Care,
Opp. ECR Food Street,
Chennai-600 115. v.
The ACIT,
Non Corporate Circle-15(1),
Chennai.
[PAN: AAAPP 7643 L]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr.R. Subramanian, CA
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
15.07.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
25.08.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Bhubaneswar, dated 08.04.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2012-13. Ravi Prabhakar
:: 2 ::
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order noticing that the assessee didn’t reply to his five (5) notices without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee didn’t receive any notices may be due to glitches in the internet and therefore, according to him, the assessee was in the dark about the notices and therefore, couldn’t participate in the proceedings, prayed for one more opportunity. Further, according to the Ld.AR, even during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity, therefore, he prayed that matter may be restored back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR opposed the plea of the assessee that the assessment be restored back to the file of the AO. Drawing our attention to the assessment order dated 19.03.2015, she submitted that the assessment order has been framed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) meaning it was not an ex parte order and that it was passed after hearing the assessee. To buttress her submission, she drew our attention to the second para of the assessment order, wherein, she pointed out that the assessee’s representative Shri K Raghavan, CA, appeared before the AO and had filed the details called for by the AO, which means, that the assessee‘s Authorized Representative had participated in the assessment proceedings; and therefore, according Ravi Prabhakar :: 3 ::
to her, by no stretch of imagination, the assessment can be said to be passed without hearing assessee. She also submitted that the disallowance of expenses has been made only because the assessee didn’t submit the details like bills/vouchers, payment details, etc. Therefore, general expenses were disallowed to the tune of ₹17,79,690/-. According to the Ld.DR, since the assessee failed to submit the nature and source of the deposits of cash of ₹34,85,700/-, it was rightly added. Hence, according to the Ld.DR, the assessment should not be sent back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Coming to the impugned appellate order, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had no other choice but to dismiss the appeal since the assessee didn’t bother to respond to his five
(5) notices. Therefore, according to her, the Ld.CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, according to the Ld.DR, the assessee should not be given one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) and also pleaded that the addition be confirmed.
4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the assessee had filed his RoI on 31.07.2012, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act; and later the RoI was picked up for scrutiny assessment. And the AO notes in the assessment order that in response to statutory notices u/s.142(1) of the Act, the Ld.AR, Shri K.
Raghavan, CA, filed the details called for. According to the AO, he noticed that the assessee had shown income from other sources to the tune of Ravi Prabhakar
:: 4 ::
₹12,15,280/- and claimed expenses like general expenses, salary, travelling & conveyance, and repairs & maintenance of ₹17,79,690/-. On being asked to produce the evidence in support of expenses, according to the AO, the Ld.AR didn’t file copies of the bills/vouchers, payment details, etc., which resulted in the AO disallowing ₹17,79,690/-. Likewise, the AO noted that the assessee had deposited ₹17,81,200/- in his ICICI Bank account and ₹17,04,500/- in Axis Bank account. When asked by the AO to explain the nature & source of cash deposits, according to the AO, assessee failed to submit the details. Thus, the AO is noted to have added
₹34,85,700/- to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have confirmed the addition by noticing that despite having issued five (5) notices, the assessee didn’t bother to appear and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) without going into the merits raised in the grounds of appeal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We don’t countenance this impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) because sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act mandates the Ld.CIT(A) to dispose of the grounds of appeal by passing reasoned order. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR before us has undertaken to file all the relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and thereafter the Ravi Prabhakar
:: 5 ::
Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law and if necessary call for Remand Report if assessee files additional evidence.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 25th day of August, 2025, in Chennai. (अिमताभ शुा)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 25th August, 2025. TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF