KANAGAPANDIAN RAJESH KANNAN,MADURAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-1,, MADURAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the orders were passed ex-parte and, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed their return of income and faced additions by the Assessing Officer (AO) for cash deposits and withdrawals, and on sale of land, due to failure to explain sources. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee did not provide written submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be provided with another opportunity to present their case when the lower authorities passed orders ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
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.
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 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.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026