GOVINDASAMY BASKARAN,NAMAKKAL V. ITO WARD 1 , NAMAKKAL

ITA 720/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Govindasamy Baskaran, an individual running a poultry raw materials business, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 52,26,000 as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on substantial cash deposits made during the demonetization period, which were scrutinized under CASS. The assessee did not participate in the initial assessment or the first appellate proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participation and the procedural history, including multiple opportunities given by the CIT(A) for the assessee to present his case, which were not utilized. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for the assessee to be diligent in participating in the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711477 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• 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: PRYATI SHARMA; J. C.I.T
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN; F
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े, उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 720/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Govindasamy Baskaran, 163-C9, R. Gopal Complex, Satyam Agencies Salem Road, Namakkal – 637 001. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Namakkal. [PAN:AITPB-3941-Q] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 27.01.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 344 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that Mr.Marimuthu, Tax Practitioner, Namakkal failed to give proper professional guidance to the assessee. The assessee Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No:720/Chny/2025 became aware of the appellate order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC only after verified the portal by the new Chartered Accountant in the first week of March 2025 and the appeal was filed immediately on 10.03.2025. 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 interest 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 was an individual running a whole business of poultry raw materials and had filed return of income for the A. Y. 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 admitting an income of Rs.5,43,280/- after availing deductions under Chapter VI-A. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verifying the abnormal cash deposit during demonetization period and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the A.Y.2017- 18 the assessee deposited SBNs to the tune of Rs.52,26,000/- in his bank accounts maintained with State Bank of India, Namakkal Branch and Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd, Namakkal during the demonetization period. The assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings and hence the AO made an addition of Rs.52,26,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, based on the material evidence available on records and passed an order u/s.144 of the Act on 28.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No:720/Chny/2025 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided five opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 3 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC was dismissed the assessee’s appeal as deficient by confirming the order of the AO dated 27.01.2024. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity before the AO, since the exparte order has been passed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A). 7. We have heard from the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi due to non-participation of the assessee before the first appellate authority. Since the assessee has failed to participate both before the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- 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. Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA. No:720/Chny/2025 8. In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of 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 assessment order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 22nd July, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेɄई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 22nd July, 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 Printed from counselvise.com "