SAYINATH VINITHA,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(1), COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. This was done because the assessee was not given proper opportunities at both the AO and CIT(A) levels.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed an order that added Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained investments and Rs. 61,991/- as interest. The assessee had not filed a return or provided explanations to the AO, and the CIT(A) confirmed the additions without proper opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order and the appellate order were passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether the matter should be remanded for a denovo assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.05.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2019-20.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which no petition for :-2-: ITA. No: 2141/Chny/2024 condonation of delay has been filed. In the interests of justice and considering the short delay, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
At the outset, the ld.AR took us through the assessment order, wherein the AO passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B on 20.02.2024, by making an addition of Rs.25 lakhs as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act along with an amount of Rs.61,991/- towards interest received on such investment. The ld.AR further took us through Para 2 of the assessment order, where the AO had given opportunities to the assessee by issuing notices from 12.07.2023 to 03.01.2024 where the assessee has neither filed the return of income in response to the notices nor filed any details/explanations. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. During the appellate proceedings, two notices were issued on 02.05.2024 and 09.05.2024 to the assessee and passed an order by confirming the additions made by the AO on 17.05.2024 without providing proper opportunities to the assessee. The ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order to the :-3-: ITA. No: 2141/Chny/2024 AO for denovo assessment and undertake to furnish all the details and documents during the proceedings.
Per contra, the ld.DR argued that the assessee was negligent and had not even filed a return of income even after issuing notices. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that proper opportunities has not been given before the AO and the order has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Since, exparte order has been passed by the AO we deem it fit to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
:-4-: ITA. No: 2141/Chny/2024
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026