DURAIRAJAN ANUSUYADEVI,KARUR V. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

ITA 228/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Durairajan Anusuyadevi, the appellant, who appealed against the ex parte order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was passed without considering the merits of the case. The appellant had not filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20, and substantial cash deposits were found in her bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reopen the assessment and subsequently passed an ex parte order adding the undisclosed income to the assessee's taxable income. The Tribunal found fault with both the AO and the CIT(A) for not providing a fair opportunity to the assessee to present her case and decided to restore the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314270 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. CLEMENT RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: R. THULASI RAM
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.228/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Durairajan Anusuyadevi, 19/1, Ward 4,4th Street Kadai Veethi, Sembadapalayan, Karur-639 113. v. The ITO, Ward-1, Income Tax Office, 16B, Chinnandan Koil Street, Karur-639 001. [PAN: BEGPA 6250 P] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. R. Thulasiram, Advocate, Mr. Sathish, Advocate, Mr. Kumara Subramaniam, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.03.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 06.11.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2019-20. ITA No.228/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Durairajan Anusuyadevi :: 2 :: 2. The assessee is noted to have been aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(A) passing ex parte order qua assessee without going into the merits of the case. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee didn’t file return of income (RoI) for AY 2019-20. The AO received information that in assessee’s bank account, there was cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,44,27,001/-. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) to re-open the assessment; and simultaneously, the AO issued notices to several banks and found out that the assessee has deposited total cash to the tune of Rs.4,45,15,229/- in her bank accounts. The AO issued notices to the assessee ‘as to why’ the cash deposits totaling Rs.4,45,15,229/- should not be brought to tax as undisclosed and unexplained income u/s.69A of the Act. Finding no response from the assessee, the AO passed ex parte assessment order and made an addition of Rs.4,45,15,229/- u/s.69A of the Act. According to the Ld.AR of the assessee, the reason for not responding to the show cause notices (SCN) issued by the AO, was not intentional/willful/deliberate but it was because the notices didn’t drop in the ‘Inbox’ of the assessee/Auditor, but unfortunately it got delivered in the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee and therefore, it went unnoticed. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte qua assessee ITA No.228/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Durairajan Anusuyadevi :: 3 :: without going into the merits of the case. We don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A) for not deciding the grounds of appeal as required under sub-section 6 of Section 250 of the Act. Be that as it may, we note that the assessment order has also been passed ex parte order qua assessee, and the assessee has given reason that the notices issued by the AO has gone into the SPAM account of the assessee/Auditor, because of which, assessee/Auditor was not aware of the assessment proceedings going on before the AO which led to passing of ex parte order wherein the addition of Rs.4,45,15,229/- was made. Before us, the assessee has filed huge Paper Book comprising of ‘405’ pages wherein the assessee has filed the following documents: Sl.No. Particulars Page No. 1 Books of Accounts with Ledger Vouchers 1-377 2 Journal Voucher Register 378-402 3 Trial Balance 403 4 Profit & Loss A/c 404 5 Balance Sheet 405 4. In the light of the evidences filed before us (supra) and the fact that the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order, and since the AO is the primary authority vested with the powers to assess the income of an assessee, and since, he didn’t get opportunity to look into the relevant documents, it would be in the interest of both sides that the assessment is restored back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment; and for such an action, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme ITA No.228/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Durairajan Anusuyadevi :: 4 :: Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). 5. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to file the written submissions and other relevant documents to prove the nature and source of money deposited in bank accounts as noted by the AO. Since there is negligence on the part of the assessee, cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed which the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and thereafter, the AO to frame de novo assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 05th day of May, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 05th May, 2025. TLN ITA No.228/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Durairajan Anusuyadevi :: 5 :: आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "