NATARAJ SHANMUGAVEL,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT, WARD-1, DINDIGUL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 329/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 April 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were issued very close to the assessment completion date during the Covid-19 pandemic. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs.1,21,03,301/- in cash during AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and issued notices. Due to the absence of evidence regarding the cash deposits, the AO passed an ex-parte order treating the entire amount as unexplained income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment proceedings were conducted fairly, especially considering the timing of notices during the Covid-19 pandemic and the opportunity provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 23.04.2025Pronounced: 24.04.2025

the order of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.10.2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that as per information available on record with the department, the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,21,03,301/- during the year under consideration for AY 2014-

15.

The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. In the absence of furnishing any evidence to prove cash deposits in the bank by the assessee, the AO proceeded to pass ex- parte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act and treated the whole cash deposits as unexplained money of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved the assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A). However, despite several notices issued, the assessee neither filed written submissions nor appeared before the CIT(A) and hence, the CIT(A) confirmed order of the AO.

Now, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard rival submissions and perused records. From the assessment order, we note that notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued during Covid-19 Pandemic on 30.03.2021. Subsequently, notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2022. Even notice u/s.143(2) was issued on 28.02.2022. Being Covid-19 Pandemic period, notices u/s.142(1) and 143(2) were just issued within one month prior to completion of assessment on 24.03.2022. Hence, in the light of peculiar facts and taking into consideration the gravity of Covid-19 Pandemic prevailing at that point of time, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the file of AO for denovo adjudication, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All the legal issues in this appeal are kept open.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →