SANKARAPANDIAN SENTHILKUMAR,BODINAYAKKANUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.505/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sankarapandian Senthilkumar, Assistant Commissioner of No.10, Subramanian Kovil St, Income Tax, Bodinayakkanur, Theni, Central Circle-2, Tamil Nadu-625513. Madurai. [PAN: DTNPS3940G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1071571323(1) dated 26.12.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Chennai for the assessment year-2020-21.

2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. AO has passed an ex-parte order u/s 144. It has been submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has also dismissed its appeal on this short point that the assessee not responded before the Ld.AO to its statutory notices. It was argued that no decision on merits has been given by the Ld.CIT(A) . The Ld.Counsel submitted that the entire controversy is regarding assessments made u/s 153A and additions made of Rs 20,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash seized during search proceedings. It was submitted that the assessee was given inadequate opportunity by the lower authorities. The Ld.Counsel for the appellant assessee has also challenged initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A as against 153C of the Act. Request was accordingly made to remand the case to the Ld.AO for readjudication. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee tendered a personal assurance of compliance to be made before the lower authorities.

3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR placed upon the order of lower authorities.

4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before us the assessee submitted that it could not attend before the Ld.AO as he barely gave two days to respond to his notice. Thus, for the notice dated 15.03.2022 compliance was required by 18.03.2022. The arguments of assessee of having been given inadequate opportunity are clearly discernible from the facts of the case. We have also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has given a very sketchy and cryptic finding before confirming the matter. He has merely upheld the order of the Ld.AO of making addition in the absence of any compliance. Page - 2 - of 4 We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given another opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the matter stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo by passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences filed through its paper book before us including any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.