KRISHNAN GOPIKRISHNAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-8(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1968/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Krishnan Gopikrishnan against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was passed ex parte. The primary contention was that both the AO and the CIT(A) had proceeded without adequately notifying the assessee, leading to a violation of natural justice. The assessee's representative argued that statutory notices were sent to an inactive email ID, preventing the assessee from responding or providing necessary documents regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107514 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2024
• 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.ANITA
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHVA PADMANABHAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल, लेखा सद\u0007 क े सम\u001d BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1968/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Krishnan Gopikrishnan, 125, Ponnamalee High Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai-600 095. v. The ITO, NCW-8(3), Chennai. [PAN: AVBPG 6876 E] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Vishva Padmanabhan, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.09.2024 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 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 in short \"the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 10.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte qua the assessee without going into the merits of the case. He also pointed out that the AO has also passed an ex parte order qua assessee since the assessee didn’t ITA No.1968/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Krishnan Gopikrishnan :: 2 :: respond two of his notices on 12.03.2018 & 06.09.2018 because it was sent to inactive e-mail ID. According to the Ld.AR, because statuary notices were forwarded to inactive e-mail ID, the assessee didn’t receive any notice of hearing from the Office of the AO, which prevented the assessee from responding/filing the relevant documents to substantiate the nature & source of the cash deposits during the demonetization period and as well as other documents called for by the AO. The Ld.AR 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) prays that since its case falls squarely as per the said decisions, the assessee may be given an opportunity before the AO. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 4. Be that as it may, it is noted that the AO has only issued two notices (supra) before making addition of Rs.24,74,680/- which included addition made u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.14,56,000/- as well as addition of Rs.10,56,000/- and since, the assessee pleads violation of natural justice, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee and therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the ITA No.1968/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Krishnan Gopikrishnan :: 3 :: AO with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR is directed to file relevant documents/written submissions and the AO to pass order in accordance to law. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th day of December, 2024, in Chennai. Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\tई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 04th December, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\f/Appellant 2. \r\u000eथ\f/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0014/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\rितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u001dफाईल/GF "