SHANMUGASUNDARAM NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO< NCW1(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed orders without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 2,50,000. However, investments of Rs. 38,10,000 in shares were not declared. The Assessing Officer treated these investments as unexplained under Section 69 and made an addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the assessee's submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred by passing orders without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and considering their submissions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
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, for the assessment year 2016-17, vide order dated 13.03.2024.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year
:-2-: ITA. No:949/Chny/2024 2016-17 on 30.03.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.2,50,000/-. However, it was discovered that assessee had made investments amounting to Rs.38,10,000/- in shares of M/s. Social Restaurants Private Ltd., which was not shown in the return of income. After considering the information received from the Assessing Officer, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and statutory notices were issued to the assessee for reassessment. Since, the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices, the Assessing Officer invoked section 69 of the Act and treated the said investments as unexplained and brought to tax. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the Assessing Officer’s order without considering the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, since the case was no prosecuted before the Assessing Officer and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) without any discussion.
:-3-: ITA. No:949/Chny/2024
Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the impugned order.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the lower authorities below. It is noted that the AO and that of the ld.CIT(A) have passed the orders without giving opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we remit back the appeal to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. We direct the assessee to appear before the AO and at liberty to submit the relevant details before the AO for adjudication of the case.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 20th September, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (महावीर िसंह ) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) लेखासद�/Accountant Member उपा�� /Vice President चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 20th September, 2024 JPV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent
:-4-: ITA. No:949/Chny/2024 3.आयकर आयु�/CIT - Chennai 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
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 →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026
