S. ARULPRAGASAM,VRIDHACHALAM vs. ITO WARD 5, CUDDALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the AO for denovo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing, considering the ex-parte proceedings before the AO and the circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic for the CIT(A) notices.
What were the facts?
The assessee made substantial cash deposits into his savings account but did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case, and after the assessee filed a return and an explanation, the AO made an addition of Rs. 43,57,595/- under Section 69A, rejecting the explanation. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of hearing, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication due to procedural issues and circumstances during the pandemic.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2012-2013) S. Arulpragasam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/20, South Street, Ward 5, Kunankurichi, Cuddalore. U Mangalam, Vridhachalam 607 804. [PAN: AHUPA 2988C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : None ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
Assessee is an individual and has made substantial cash deposit into his savings bank account but did not file the return of income. Therefore, on the basis of the same, the case of the assessee has been reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short ‘Act’). The assessee, thereafter filed his return of income on 09.09.2019 for AY 2012-13 admitting a total income of Rs.2,58,000/-. The assessee has also filed a letter dated 09.09.2019 explaining the cash deposits made in bank. However, the AO has passed order under section 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 24.12.2019 an addition of Rs.43,57,595/- under section 69A of the Act rejecting the explanation of the assessee.
Further, the appellant filed the appeal against the order under section 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 24.12.2019 before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee neither appeared nor submitted any submissions before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us.
None appeared before us for the assessee. We have rejected the adjournment application filed by the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. first appellate authority also.
Though we concur with the submissions of Ld.DR, Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee the appeal requires fresh adjudication. We have also seen that before AO assessee was ex-parte and before ld.CIT(A) most of notices dated 15.01.2021, 02.09.2021 and 27.10.2021 u/s 250 of the Act were issued during Covid-19 Pandemic. Accordingly, for complete adjudication at grass root itself, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld.AO for denovo adjudication after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of August, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026