DHARANI SAKTHIVEL,ERODE V. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE

ITA 751/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dharani Sakthivel, who did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 despite substantial cash deposits of Rs. 12,50,000 in her bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but the assessee failed to respond. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 12,50,000 as unexplained cash deposits under section 144 of the Act. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-response to multiple notices. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participation in both the assessment and appellate proceedings but decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company vs CIT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633284 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM; J. C.I.T
• Assessee Lawyers: S.SENTHIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:751/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dharani Sakthivel, 141, R.S.Road, Perundurai, Erode – 638 052. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode. [PAN:BXHPS-1640-D] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13, dated 30.03.2024. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 286 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The assessee, being the only daughter submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the delay is caused due to ill health of her mother and ultimately passed away on 30-06-2022 and the assessee was mentally upset with no one to console her. :-2-: ITA. No.:751/Chny/2025 Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual had not filed return of income. As per the information of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.12,50,000/- by the assessee into her bank account during the financial year 2011-12, the AO had issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on 29.05.2019 to the assessee. Further, the AO also issued various notices to the assessee to appear and furnish the details of cash deposit. However, the assessee failed to respond to all the notices and also did not file the return of income also. Since the assessee failed to participate in assessment proceedings, the assessment was concluded u/s.144 of the Act dated 21.11.2019, by adding an amount of cash deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits into her bank account. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the seven notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) from 06.01.2021 to 18.01.2024. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order dated 30.03.2024 without any discussion on the merits of case. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and not allowed. :-3-: ITA. No.:751/Chny/2025 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has failed to take note of hearing notices sent through e-mail, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings as well as assessment proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the ld.CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued three hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee had failed to take note of hearing notices sent from the office of the ld.CIT(A). We note that the AO has also passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department along with few information and documents submitted by the assessee and made an addition and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Since the assessee has failed to participate both before the AO as well as the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of :-4-: ITA. No.:751/Chny/2025 Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चेɄई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 12th June, 2025 SP आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "