PANEERSELVAM SUBRAMANIAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1),, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 612/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 April 2025AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte, with an addition of Rs. 52,50,000/-, and the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, dismissing it as not maintainable. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to make an application as per the Proviso to Section 249(4) of the Act and comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Paneerselvam Subramaniam, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.12.2024. This order dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 23.10.2023, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The AO had reopened the assessment because the assessee purchased immovable property for Rs. 52,50,000/- but had not filed a return of income. The AO made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 52,50,000/- as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable because the assessee had not filed a return of income and had not paid the required advance tax as per Section 249(4) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal as not maintainable under Section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without adjudicating the merits of the addition made by the AO? Assessee's contention: The assessee, though absent during the hearing before the Tribunal, is aggrieved by the huge tax burden fastened by the ex-parte order of the AO and the subsequent dismissal by the CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee was negligent before the AO and had not paid the advance tax, and therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 23.04.2025Pronounced: 30.04.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 28.12.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 23.10.2023.

2.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the hearing was proceeded with the able assistance of Ld. D.R, Mr. M.P. Guruprasad, Addl. CIT.

3.

The A.O has reopened the assessment for the reason that assessee has purchased immovable property of Rs. 52,50,000/-, but had not filed return of income. The A.O in the ex-parte order passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act has assessed income at Rs.52,50,000/- by making addition on account of unexplained investment in the said property as the assessee has not responded to the notices issued.

Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld.

1.

CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable for the reason that the assessee has not filed the return of income and not paid an amount of advance tax that was payable, as required u/s. 249(4) of the Act. The assessee is in appeal against the order as huge tax burden has been fastened by the ex-parte order passed by the A.O.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has stated that assessee has been negligent before the A.O and has not paid the advance tax , therefore the Ld. CIT(A) order be confirmed.

5.

We have perused the materials available on record and find that assessment order has been ex-parte making addition of Rs.52,50,000/- and the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. We are of opinion that assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to his file with a direction to provide proper opportunity of being heard. We also direct the assessee to make an application as per Proviso to Section 249(4) of the Act and comply with the notices being issued by the Ld. CIT(A). 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 30th April, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →