KAUSALYA,CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(1), CHENNAI

ITA 507/CHNY/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Kausalya, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was regarding the addition made under the head 'income from profit or gain from business' amounting to 80,08,740. The assessee challenged the reassessment procedure followed, citing non-compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request to submit additional evidence, which was initially rejected by the CIT(A), and thus remanded the case for further consideration.

• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SREENIVASAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी इंट ूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.507/Chny/2026 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kausalya, No. 32, D – Block, Fourth Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 102. [PAN: AAIPK5979Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : None ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 16.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 275 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.507/Chny/26 2 prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment petition. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 4. The assessee raised 10 grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. At the outset, it is noted that the Assessing Officer made addition under the head “income from profit or gain from business at ₹.80,08,740/- vide his order dated 26.03.2022 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], against which the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a legal ground challenging the said reassessment was not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19(SC). Further, it appears from para 5.2 of the impugned order that the assessee requested permission of the ld. CIT(A) to file financial statement, computation of total income etc., as Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.507/Chny/26 3 additional evidence for which, the ld. CIT(A) rejected by giving his findings from para 5.2.1 of the impugned order. For another ground vide para 5.5 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee from Form 26AS and further verify the corresponding amounts has been included in the return filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. CIT(A) also directed the assessee to furnish all relevant documents for the purpose of verification by the Assessing Officer, but, however, refused to accept the financial statement, computation of total income in the appellate proceedings. 6. We note that since the Assessing Officer made addition under the head income from profit or gain of the business or profession and the relevant evidences like financial statement, computation of income are very much required for fair adjudication of the issue on hand, we find no reason why the ld. CIT(A) refused to accept the financial statement, computation of total income as additional evidence, whereas, he directed the assessee to furnish all relevant documents with reference to the issue in Form 26AS in terms of Rule 37BA of IT Rules. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should get an opportunity to file the additional evidences and accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.507/Chny/26 4 the ld. CIT(A) to consider the additional evidences and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th March, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.03.2026 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "