VAIYAPURI PARTHIPEN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO WARD 1, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 756/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (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. Finding that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte, and that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues of limitation or merits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an ex-parte order by the CIT(A), which upheld an addition of Rs. 1,54,32,920/- made by the AO under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the assessment proceedings were invalid due to non-service of notice and that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate jurisdictional issues or merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order and CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper adjudication of jurisdictional and merit issues are sustainable?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 16.06.2025Pronounced: 18.06.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 14.11.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 19.11.2019.

2.

There is a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.

1.

The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

3.

The A.O, in the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, has made addition of Rs. 1,54,32,920/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was not served. The assessee also contested the addition on merits, contending that the entire cash deposit was taxed without affording proper opportunity. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, without adjudicating either the jurisdictional issue or on the merits.

4.

Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the assessment order passed is without jurisdiction as no notice has been served to the assessee. The Ld AR also submitted that assessment order as well as the Ld. CIT(A)’s order were passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue of limitation therefore, assessment order be quashed.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

1.

5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the assessment order as well as the CIT(A)’s order, we find that both the orders were passed ex-parte . We find that the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated appeal either on the issues of limitation raised by the assessee or on merits. We, accordingly remit the matter back to the file of Ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18th day of June, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →