KANAGAPANDIAN RAJESH KANNAN,MADURAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-1,, MADURAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद! एवं ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! के सम(
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.176/Chny/2025
िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2022-23
Kanagapandian Rajesh Kannan,
87, 2nd Floor, North Masi Street,
Keerathurai S.O.,
Madurai South – 625 001. Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward-1,
Madurai.
[PAN: BBSPR 4069Q]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate
HIथ की ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
18.03.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
26.03.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M :
Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year
(AY) 2022-23 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
[hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 25.11.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 07.02.2024. :- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31.12.2022 admitting total income of Rs. 4,58,040/-. The A.O has made addition u/s. 69A of the Act at Rs. 1,69,34,010/- of cash deposits in ICICI Bank Ltd., and of Rs. 72,25,000/- of cash withdrawal from IDBI Bank u/s. 69C of the Act . The A.O further made addition of Rs.21,15,000/- on sale of land. The A.O has made addition for the reason that the assessee has failed to explain sources of cash deposits/withdrawals. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has issued three notices from 24.10.2024 to 14.11.2024 and dismissed the appeal as the assessee has not made any written submission in response to the notices issued.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee 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 the interests of justice.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
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 ex parte. 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.10,000/-. 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 for denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th March, 2025. (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY. T. Varkey) ाियक सद! / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा सद! /Accountant Member चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 26th March, 2025. EDN/- :- 4 -:
आदेश क ितिलप अेषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Madurai
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF