RAJNAICKER SUBBALAKSHMI,SANKARANKOVIL vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 145/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- during the demonetization period but did not file a return of income. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) and later passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 144, adding Rs. 13,03,000/-. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order and the appellate order were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 19.03.2025Pronounced: 26.03.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 21.11.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 06.12.2019.

1.

of Rs.10,00,000/- in her bank account during demonetization period, but has not filed return of income for the relevant Assessment Year.

The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for return of income. However, the assessee neither filled return of income in response to the notices nor complied with notices issued during assessment proceeding. As a result, the A.O passed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act, making addition of cash deposit of Rs.13,03,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte holding the addition made by the A.O.

3.

The Ld. A.R has contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee either before A.O or before Ld. CIT(A) and both the orders have been passed ex-pare and therefore, the case may be remitted back to the A.O for fresh consideration in interests of justice.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A) have 3 -: passed the orders exparte. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the A.O subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for her fresh consideration. 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 26th March, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →