P PUSHPALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-10(3), CHENNAI

Assessment Years: 2010-11 P.Pushpalatha, Income Tax Officer, No.11, Vivek Nagar, Kolathur, Non-Corporate Circle-10(3) Chennai-600 099. Chennai. [PAN: AINPP2985Q] Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Advocate Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-18, (herein after called CIT(A)’ in short], dated 02.09.2025 for Assessment Year-2010-11.

2.0 Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was filed on 29.09.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.5,97,550/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai (hereinafter called “AO”). Subsequently, survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, were conducted in the business premises of the appellant. During the course of such survey operations, the Department unearthed certain incriminating material showing purchase of properties. A statement was recorded from the appellant u/s. 131(1) of the income tax Act. During course of such statement, the appellant admitted that she has received Rs.30 lakhs on sale of property over and above the above sale consideration recorded. Based on this, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 was issued to the appellant on 24.03.2017. The appellant neither complied with the notice issued u/s 148 nor notice u/s. 142(1) calling for the information. In the circumstances, the AO passed the assessment order on 30.12.2017 at a total income of Rs.1,80,97,548/-.

3.0 Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) contenting that the assessment order is bad in law in as much as no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued before completing the assessment. Further, it was contended that the addition was made by the assessing authority without any basis. The learned CIT(A) while upholding the addition made by the AO, proceeded to quash the reassessment order on the ground that in the absence of notice u/s. 143(2), the reassessment order is bad in law. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us contending that the CIT(A) ought not to Page - 2 - of 4 have confirmed the above addition of Rs.24,98,000/-, when the assessment order was quashed. On the other hand, the learned Sr.DR had opposed the above submissions.

4.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings for want of not issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. When the assessment order was quashed, the CIT(A) ought not to have entered into the merits of addition. Therefore, finding of the CIT(A) to the extent of confirming addition of Rs.24,98,000/-, are hereby deleted. Since the appeal was already allowed by the CIT(A), by quashing the assessment order, we are of the considered opinion that no prejudice is caused to the appellant. We do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

4.0. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 19th , January-2026 at Chennai.