RAJENDRAN VIJAYABASKAR,CHENNAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the first appellate order were ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to file relevant documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee is engaged in trading business related to 'Kids Clothing' and failed to file a return of income. Despite notices, the assessee did not appear before the AO or CIT(A). The AO made additions under sections 69C and 69A, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders can be sustained without providing the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
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 (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 19.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2014-15.
At the outset, it is noted that there is few days delay in filing of appeal and having gone through the application for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons given in the application are excusable and therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
At the outset, the Ld.DR brought to our notice that the assessee didn’t appear before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as before the AO; and he was also a non-filer of return u/s.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) for AY 2014-15. According to the Ld.DR, the Ld.CIT(A) had issued six (6) notices to the assessee but he responded only to the last notice by submitting that ‘he is submitting all the relevant proof and would submit further information/clarification if required’. According to the Ld.DR, the Ld.CIT(A) has noted that there were no relevant documents uploaded by the assessee for explaining the addition of Rs.2 Crs. & Rs.32,75,940/- made by the AO u/s.69C/69AC respectively. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) had no other alternative but to confirm the addition. The Ld.DR submitted that since the assessee didn’t file any relevant documents to dislodge the additions made by the AO/Ld.CIT(A), the additions may be sustained.
Having heard the Ld.DR and after perusing the records, we note that the assessee is engaged in trading business relating to ‘Kids Clothing’ and didn’t file any return despite issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on the specious plea that the portal didn’t permit him to file the same. The AO is noted to have passed an ex parte order qua assessee, which has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), wherein, the additions made u/s.69C of the Act to the tune of Rs.2 Crs. and u/s.69A of the Act to the tune of Rs.32,75,940/- has been confirmed. Since the assessment order as well as the first appellate order are ex parte orders, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file relevant documents to substantiate his defense against the addition and pass fresh assessment order after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 11th day of June, 2025, in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026