SASIREKA BOOPATHI,THANJAVUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANJAVUR
Facts
The assessee did not file a regular return of income for AY 2019-20. Based on information about the purchase of property, the AO formed an opinion of escaped assessment and issued notices under sections 148A and 148. The assessee did not comply. The AO proceeded with a best judgment assessment under section 144, making an addition of Rs. 6,00,000 for unexplained investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness, noting that the Department did not controvert the affidavit. The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, allowing the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the ex parte assessment and CIT(A) orders are valid, and if the case should be remanded for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 139, 148A, 148, 144, 147, 144B, 142(1), 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE- & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”डी” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sasireka Boopathi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1/263, Vellalar Street, Thanjavur. Saliyamangalam, Papanasam, Thanjavur – 613504 PAN: GPFPB2689J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Gokularaman – CA Revenue by Ms. V Aswathy – JCIT Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2019-20 dated 19.09.2025. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :
ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 [A]
“ 1. The Assessment Order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Unit is very much inconsistent with the mandatory requirement of Section 151A and as per CBDT's Faceless Assessment Scheme, vide Notification No.18/2022/F.No.370142/16/2022-TPL(Part1) dated 29th March,2022. Therefore, the Assessment Order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Unit has become null and void, since Notices under Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d) and Section 148 mentioned in the FACTS were issued by JAO and not by the National Faceless Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department, as specified in the Notification. 2. The Appellant Smt. Sasireka Boopathi is an Agriculturist. She is having Agricultural Land in Kumbakonam. From this Agricultural Land, she derived Net Agricultural Income of Rs.1,60,000 between the period from 2nd February 2018 to 18th July 2018. Hence, the Source is explainable for Rs. 1,60,000. 3. The Appellant's Mother Smt. Seethalakshmi is having Agricultural Land in Kumbakonam, wherein around 40 coconut trees are there As Smt. Seethalakshmi, being aged about 64 years, her daughter Smt. Sasireka Boopathi, the Appellant managed watering, fertilization and cultivation of the coconut trees. The cultivation was carried out not only in the Financial Year 2018- 2019, but also from the last 20 years. From this agricultural activity, the Net Income will be around Rs. 2,50,000 per annum. The Income derived from this agricultural activity was also in her hand, when she purchased the Land for Rs.11,00,000. Hence, the Source is explainable for the gift received from Parents Rs.2,00,000 and another Rs.2,50,000 from agricultural income. 4. Hence, the Source is explainable for addition made for Rs.6,00,000 Gift from Parents - Rs.2,00,000
ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 [A]
Net Agricultural Income from Land Owned by Smt. Sasireka Boopathi Rs.1,60,000 and Net Agricultural Income derived from Agri Land owned by Appellant's Mother Smt. Seethlakshmi Rs.2,50,000 Total Amount - Rs.6,10,000. and 5.Such Other Grounds and Other evidences which shall be submitted at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139 of the Act was filed for the A.Y.2019-20. Based on the information received from Insight Portal of the Department that the appellant purchased immovable property for consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) formed an opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 31.03.2023 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. The appellant assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, nor the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the
ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 [A]
Assessing Officer proceeded with framing best judgment assessment u/s.144 vide order dated 29.02.2024 passed u/s.147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.6,00,000/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of unexplained source of investment on immovable property.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A), however dismissed appeal for non-prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
On the other hand, ld.Senior Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Lower Authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 30 days in presenting the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had
ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 [A]
filed an Affidavit seeking for the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of as he was suffering from the illness of ‘Bonchial Asthma’ and in support of this a medical certificate also filed.
The ld.Sr.Departmental Representative had not controverted the above averments made in the Affidavit. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
We find that the assessment order as well as the ld.CIT(A)’s orders are ex parte orders, as we are satisfied with the reasons given for non-appearance before the above authorities, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee. All other contentions raised before us by the appellant are left open for consideration before the Assessing Officer.
ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 [A]
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands Partly Allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 17th March, 2026/ SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “डी” ब�च, 4. चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
