CHINNUSAMY SATHYA ,NAMAKKAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1331/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities and, in the interest of justice, set aside the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals are against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of income and penalty for AY 2016-17. The case was re-opened under Section 148 as the assessee received commission income but did not file a return. The AO proceeded ex-parte, treating the income as unexplained under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and filing evidence before the lower authorities? Whether the appeals should be set aside for de novo adjudication due to lack of proper opportunity?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 148,Section 194H,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 23.07.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: These appeals preferred by the assessee are against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), both dated 13.06.2024 arising out of the orders u/s 144 and u/s 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2016-17.

1.

& 1332/Chny/2025(AY 2016-17) Chinnusamy Sathya 2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed after delay of ‘250’ days and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit, we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, we condone the delay of ‘250’ days and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of both appeals raised by the assessee.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the case has been re-opened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 after recording reason, to assess Commission or Brokerage income cover under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has received Commission or Brokerage income of Rs.36,16,396/- from Aliceblue Commodities Pvt. Ltd. On which TDS of Rs.3,61,638/- has been deducted. However, assessee has not filed return of income for the relevant assessment year evading the tax as alleged. The assessee did not appear in assessment proceedings. Therefore, AO proceeded ex-parte and treated Rs.36,16,396/- as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also proceeded ex-parte and affirmed the order of the AO. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also confirmed by the CIT(A) for concealment of his income. Now assessee is in appeal before us.

& 1332/Chny/2025(AY 2016-17) Chinnusamy Sathya 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that while adjudicating the matter, the ld. CIT(A) or AO has not given the proper opportunity of hearing and to file the evidences filed before the AO/CIT(A). He further pleaded that for one more opportunity to file the evidence before the CIT(A) or AO. The Ld. Addl. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not filed supporting evidences with regard to the addition before the ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submission addressed by the ld. Departmental Representative. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.AO to file all relevant evidences/documents to prosecute his case. Even neither evidence and nor explanation were filed before the AO. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.AO for de novo adjudication subject to cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld.AO whose shall proceed for denovo assessment after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings as per law.

& 1332/Chny/2025(AY 2016-17) Chinnusamy Sathya Since, we have set aside the quantum appeal to the file of ld.AO for denovo adjudication, consequently this penalty appeal is also set aside to AO.

Order pronounced on the 23rd day of July, 2025, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →