BOOPALAN MANJULA,DHARMAPURI V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR

ITA 3287/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Boopalan Manjula, the appellant, who faced an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Hosur, for the assessment year 2011-12 under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was based on unexplained bank deposits and receipts totaling Rs. 1,22,67,668. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response from the assessee. The Tribunal noted the principles of natural justice and granted another opportunity for the assessee to present his case, emphasizing the need for proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472394 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. ASWATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATRAMAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल ,लेखा सद˟ एवं माननीय ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.3287/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2011-2012 ) Boopalan Manjula, 2/1, Angagurusamy Chetty Street, Dharmapuri 636 701. [PAN: BGGPM 5188J] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Hosur (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA. (Virtual) Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055735152(1) dated 05.09.2023. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Hosur for the assessment year 2011-12 u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 25.11.2019. 2 ITA No.3287/Chny/2024 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deposited cash in bank accounts during the F.Y. 2010-11 relating to A.Y. 2011-12, but no return of income was filed. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2018 and served on 05.04.2018. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was also issued calling for details. The assessee filed the return on 13.04.2019 declaring an income of Rs 1,97,137/-. However, the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 was much beyond the time specified in the notice u/s 148 and therefore the AO treated the return filed as non-est. Also, except filing the belated return in response to the re-opening notice, the assessee did not respond to any other notices. The AO therefore proceeded to complete the assessment order u/s 144 and brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,22,67,668/- which included bank deposits of Rs.77,67,668/- and unexplained receipts of Rs 45,00,000/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued notices to produce all relevant submissions in support of the claims made in the grounds of appeal. However, assessee did not respond, hence, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the AO and ld.CIT(A) has not given proper notices as per section 282 of the Act, hence assessee failed to file evidence and documents to substantiate his explanation regarding bank deposits and unexplained receipts. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 3 ITA No.3287/Chny/2024 4. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment subject to cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld.AO whose shall proceed for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence, confirmations and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of March, 2025 Sd/- sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल) (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :25-03-2025 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Salem. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "