ARUMUGAM KUMAR,TIRUVALLUR V. ITO WARD 1, TIRUVALLUR

ITA 1922/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Arumugam Kumar, the appellant, who did not initially file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, despite having sold immovable property and received a salary, as flagged by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under its Risk Management Strategy. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the case and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to the filing of a belated return by the assessee. The ITO then assessed the income, including capital gains from the property sale and undisclosed salary, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to delay without addressing the merits, prompting the filing of the current appeal before the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773920 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Salary income; Capital Gains
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ \u0010ा यपीठ चे\u0015ई म\u0018। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1922/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Arumugam Kumar, 104, 8th Street, Kakalur Ind Estate S.O., 29, Kakkalur, Tiruvallur-602003. PAN No. ALZPK 6523 A Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1, Tiruvallur. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri S. Girishkumar, Advocate Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT. Date of hearing 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 26/09/2025 PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 30/06/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 as per ground of appeal on record. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration as per the information flagged under Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA Portal. It was noticed that the assessee had sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 78,75,000/-. Further the assessee had received salary of Rs. 5,90,662/-. The case of the assessee was, therefore, reopened under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 28/02/2024. Subsequently, notice Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA1922/Chny/2025 Arumugam Kumar Vs ITO under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 27/05/2024 declaring total income of Rs. 2,90,230/- . However, the assessee did not respond to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on 09/10/2024. The Assessing Officer, therefore, computed the income of the assessee as taken the entire sale consideration of Rs. 78,75,000/- as capital gains and added to the total income of the assessee. Further the Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs. 5,90,662/- as undisclosed salary income. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) belatedly by 30 days. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay and not decided the appeal on merit. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merit. 6. The ld. Sr.DR, on the other hand, justified the action of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee does not deserve any leniency. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA1922/Chny/2025 Arumugam Kumar Vs ITO 7. We have considered the rival submissions, we find it proper and in the interest of justice, to restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee shall be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to provide all documents/evidences to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) and submit all the relevant documents. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai Printed from counselvise.com "