MALAIYALAGU CHINNAKOMBIAH,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD-1 , TUTICORIN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that ex-parte orders were passed due to non-compliance by the assessee. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment due to a significant difference between cash deposits and reported sales. The addition was made under Section 44AD, and ex-parte orders were passed by both the AO and CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A), and if the ex-parte orders were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 143(3),Section 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 15.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 18.09.2021.
The assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 showing total income of Rs. 3,02,557/- and assessment :- 2 -: was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the A.O has reopened the assessment on the ground that there is cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 3,00,17,265/- as against reported sale of Rs.2,61,28,975/- and therefore, the escapement income of Rs. 38,88,290/- being difference of sale reported and cash deposit in the bank account. The A.O in the assessment order has made the addition @ 8% of the cash deposit u/s. 44AD of the Act and passed ex-parte order u/s. 144 of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has also passed ex-parte order and confirmed the addition.
The Ld. A.R has contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee either before A.O or before Ld. CIT(A) and both the orders have been passed ex-pare and therefore the case may be remitted back to the A.O for fresh consideration.
The Ld. D.R relied on the orders of the authorities below and requested to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the orders of A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A), we find that the orders have been passed ex-parte for the non- compliance by the assessee. The Ld. A.R has submitted that the Ld. :- 3 -:
CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore the case may be remanded back to the A.O for adjudication on merits. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the Assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19th July, 2024. (यस यस िव"ने" रिव) (जगदीश) (Jagadish) (SS Viswanethra Ravi) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य /Accountant Member सद"य "ाियक सद / Judicial Member चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 19th July, 2024. EDN/- :- 4 -:
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
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