DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SHRI. SOMANUR RAMASWAMY BHOOPATHY, COIMBATORE

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 28.10.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2016-17 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated 13.03.2024.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of hiring passenger vehicles. The assessee had not filed his return of income for A.Y.2016-17 as per section 139 of the Act. Based on the information available with the department that the assessee cash deposits during the assessment year 2016-17 to the CSB Bank ltd. to the tune of Rs.1,10,98,500/- and also received Rs.44,985/-, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and issued the statutory notices to the assessee. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 16.05.2023 declaring NIL total income and claimed a business loss of Rs.10,81,215/-. Further, the statutory notices were issued, and the assessee had filed the details for initial notices but not responded to the subsequent notices and the Show cause notice for variation proposed. Hence, the assessment was completed u/s.147 of the Act dated 13.03.2024 by the Assessing Officer based on the available information and by rejecting the books of accounts by making an estimated addition of Rs.12,36,212/- (8% of Rs.1,54,52,656/-) and considering the claimed loss as NIL.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 13.04.2024.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) in his order in para No.7(iii) has stated that the main grievance of the assessee relates to non verification the details and passing of the best judgement assessment order and hence the ld.CIT(A) has set aside the assessment order and in accordance with proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act remitted the file to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us.

The ld.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, though the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings. Hence, ld.DR prayed for setting the order of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits.

On the other hand, the ld.AR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee could not respond to the show cause notice and the :-3-:

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed order by considering the information available with the department and on partial submissions of the assessee by estimating the income and rejecting the books of accounts. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC on perusal of the Assessing Officer order and the submissions made by the assessee, has set aside the order and remitted to the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment denovo in accordance with proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and hence we dismiss the appeal of the revenue and uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2026 at Chennai.