INDU BALA,PONDICHERRY V. ITO NON CORP WARD 5(1), CHENNAI

ITA 295/CHNY/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Indu Bala, the appellant, who did not initially file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 despite having engaged in significant financial transactions, including the purchase of immovable property worth Rs. 1,25,00,000. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after receiving information about these transactions. The appellant later filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 8,42,860 and provided some details about the source of funds for part of the property purchase, citing a loan from Axis Bank. However, due to insufficient details regarding the remaining amount, the A.O assessed the income at Rs. 64,95,714. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The appellant then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the case back to the A.O for further investigation, emphasizing the need for the appellant to cooperate fully with the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 845905 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIPIN C.N
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK MURALI

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ा यपीठ, चे\u0012ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0015ी जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े, उपा \u001a\u001b एवं सु\u0015ी पदमा वती यस, लेखा सद$ क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.295/Chny/2026 िनधा \u0018रण वष\u0018 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indu Bala, No.18, Vinayagar Koil Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Pondicherry – 605 011. PAN: AAIPM 6372P Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-5(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीला थ( की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. Abhishek Murali, CA *+थ( की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 19.03.2026 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short \"CIT(A)\") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short \"the Act\") dated 12.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The A.O received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and has also entered into certain other financial transactions. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.295/Chny/2026 Indu Bala :- 2 -: Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee in response filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 8,42,860/-. The Assessee filed details explaining the source for purchases to the tune of Rs. 74,57,571/- stating that the loan is obtained from Axis Bank. Since the assessee did not file any further details with regard to the source for balance of amount of consideration, the A.O completed the assessment assessing income at Rs. 64,95,714/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not aware of the income tax proceedings and completely relied on his counsel for handling the tax matters. The Ld. AR further submitted that the counsel of the assessee did not provide proper professional support. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee is having proper explanation for the source of purchase of property and accordingly prayed for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.295/Chny/2026 Indu Bala :- 3 -: one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore, remit the appeal back to the A.O for fresh consideration of the impugned additions by calling for relevant details as may be required to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The assessee directed to file any further details as may be called for with regard to the impugned additions made by the AO and cooperate with assessment proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly. 5. Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the AO. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th day of March, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े) (George George K) उपा \u001a\u001b / Vice President (पदमा वती यस) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 24th March, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.295/Chny/2026 Indu Bala :- 4 -: आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com EJTADA DURGA NARESH Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.03.27 12:39:51 +05'30' "