MR. JAGANATHAN ANANDAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD-10(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's readiness to present evidence, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution. The assessee had failed to comply with notices from the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte assessment with additions for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present evidence before the Assessing Officer after failing to comply with earlier notices and appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the exparte order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.
We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the affidavit, upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay of 23 days is condoned.
At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer found cash deposits in the accounts of the assessee during demonetization period. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that no compliance were made by the assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Having no compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act and inter alia making addition on account of unexplained money and unexplained cash credits and determined the income of the assessee at ₹.22,84,918/-. Having aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but, however, non-submissions of evidence in support of his claim, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
Before us, the ld. AR Ms. R. Sridevi, Advocate prayed to afford an opportunity to the assessee as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case without fail. Further, she submits that the assessee is ready with all documentary evidences in support of his claim and requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. As discussed above, there was no compliance before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) with relevant documentary evidences. Taking into account and undertaking as advanced by the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee that the assessee is ready to prosecute the case without fail, we deem it proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, before the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026