STEPHAN BABU CHITRA,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3277/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 March 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and FAA proceedings were ex-parte. While the assessee's explanation of an accident lacked documentary proof, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant one last opportunity for the assessee to present her case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2020-21. The assessment was completed ex-parte on a best judgment basis due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The assessee claimed to have met with an accident during the proceedings, but provided no documentary evidence. The AO made an addition of Rs. 3,16,01,578/- as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to present her case before the AO, considering her ex-parte submissions and lack of documentary evidence for her absence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 03.03.2026Pronounced: 03.03.2026

O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21.

2.

At the very outset, we notice that the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs.3,16,01,578/- u/s.69A of the Act.

3.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee had met with an accident during the course of assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessee could not appear before the AO nor before the FAA. The Ld.AR further submitted that since the assessee had not produced any details with regard to cash deposits made in her bank account, the AO added the same as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, which was further confirmed by the FAA. Since the assessee had not filed any details before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, the Ld.AR pleaded for one last opportunity to the assessee to represent her case before the AO.

4.

The Ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and the FAA.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessment proceedings before the AO as well as the proceedings before the FAA were completed ex-parte, as the assessee failed to respond to the various statutory notices issued from the office of the AO & the FAA. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had met with an accident during the course of the assessment proceedings and, therefore, was unable to comply with the notices issued by the AO & FAA. However, no documentary evidence, such as medical records or medical certificate was produced before us to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of any supporting material, we are unable to accept the explanation so furnished. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the statutory notices issued by the Department. However, considering the fact that addition was made without the benefit of necessary details from the assessee, in order to meet the ends of justice and ensure fair play, we deem it appropriate to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present her case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay a cost of 4 -:

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The said amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, and the assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →