GABRIEL SAM THINAKARAN,TIRUNELVELI V. ITO, WARD-4, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 1412/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Gabriel Sam Thinakaran against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed an ex parte assessment order made by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was based on a significant cash deposit of ₹1,00,67,250 made by the assessee during the financial year 2015-16, which was added to his income under section 69A of the Act. The assessee contended that he was unable to respond to the notices due to hospitalization, which the Tribunal considered a valid reason for not responding, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716927 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2025
• 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: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P.M. KATHIR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice

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 अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1412/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gabriel Sam Thinakaran, 1/5B, A.D.J. Nagar, E.B. Office Near Tissaiyanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. v. The ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli. [PAN: ETMPS 4800 M] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 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 26.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2016-17. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1412/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Gabriel Sam Thinakaran :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal has been filed belatedly by ‘197’ days and in order to explain the delay, he drew our attention to the application filed for condoning the delay along with the affidavit supporting the averments made therein. Having gone through the contents of the application for condonation of delay supported by medical documents, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. The Ld.AR assailing the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee only on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices, passed within ‘40’ days [27.06.2024 to 31.07.2024]. According to the Ld.AR, since the assessee was hospitalized during that period, he didn’t had any access to the computer which prevented him from knowing about the notices which led the Ld.CIT(A) passing the ex parte order without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by assessee before him. Therefore, according to the him, the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous for violation of natural justice. Further, he also brought to our notice that the AO also passed an ex parte order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) [best judgment assessment] by taking note that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹1,00,67,250/- during the FY 2015-16 in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, he reopened the assessment and made the addition of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1412/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Gabriel Sam Thinakaran :: 3 :: the entire deposit of cash i.e. ₹1,00,67,250/- u/s.69A of the Act which action according to the Ld.AR is arbitrary and high pitched. Therefore, he prayed that he may be given one more opportunity before the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee since the assessee failed to appear/respond before both the authorities below. 5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the AO having noted that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹1,00,67,250/- in his bank account in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank had reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 22.03.2021 and having found that the assessee didn’t file any RoI and also didn’t respond to his notices issued to his e-mail/Speed Post, the AO framed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by making the addition u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO since the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices. The assessee has brought to our notice that due to his illness/medical problems, he had to be hospitalized on several occasions and due to which he couldn’t get any access to his computer and therefore notices issued to his e-mail couldn’t be noticed by him which prevented the assessee from responding Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1412/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Gabriel Sam Thinakaran :: 4 :: to notices issued by both the authorities below. Since the entire cash deposits have been added in the hands of the assessee, considering the medical reports of the assessee, we are inclined to give him one more opportunity by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. Ltd. (supra), and 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 subject to assessee remitting cost of Rs.10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and then, the AO to assess the income of the assessee afresh after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. 6. The Ld.AR has undertaken to appear and file the written submissions and other relevant documents to support the nature and source of cash deposits, which we expect the assessee to fulfill before the AO. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 22nd day of August, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1412/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Gabriel Sam Thinakaran :: 5 :: चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 22nd August, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "