M SATHASIVAM,TIRUPATTUR V. ITO WARD 2, VELLORE

ITA 750/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M. Sathasivam, an individual and former central government employee, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's lack of awareness and non-receipt of notices from the Income Tax Department. The AO had reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 17,62,290 in the assessee's bank account, which were added to his income. Both the AO and the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders due to the assessee's non-participation in the proceedings. The Tribunal found that despite the assessee's non-cooperation, the matter should be reconsidered to ensure justice and proper representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633462 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• 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: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM; J. C.I.T
• Assessee Lawyers: N. RAGHURAM; BY VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ बी’ Ɋायपीठ,चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 750/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M. Sathasivam, No.8/4, Father Gause Road, S Kodiyur, Jolarpet Post Tirupattur– 635 851. vs. ITO, Ward -2, Vellore. [PAN:BHEPS-9749-G] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. N. Raghuram, C.A. by virtual ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13, dated 20.10.2023. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 438 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee was lack of awareness regarding the relevant taxation matters and was not notified of the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee :-2-: ITA. No.:750/Chny/2025 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 interests 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 is an individual who was a central government employee. As per the information of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- or more by the assessee into his savings bank account for which the assessee has not filed the return of income, the AO had reopened the case u/s.147 of the Act and issued notices u/s.148 of the Act on 26.03.2019 to the assessee. Further, the AO also issued various notices to the assessee to appear and furnish the details of cash deposit. However, the assessee failed to respond to all the notices and also did not file the return of income also. Since the assessee failed to participate in assessment proceedings, the assessment was concluded u/s.144 of the Act dated 28.12.2019, by adding an amount of cash deposit of Rs.17,62,290/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in SB account. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the three notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) from 06.01.2022 to 25.09.2023. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order dated 20.10.2023 by confirming the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has failed to take note of hearing notices sent through e-mail, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings as well as assessment :-3-: ITA. No.:750/Chny/2025 proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the ld.CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued three hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee had failed to take note of hearing notices sent from the office of the ld.CIT(A). We note that the AO has also passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department along with few information and documents submitted by the assessee and made an addition and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Since the assessee has failed to participate both before the AO as well as the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) 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. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the 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 order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable :-4-: ITA. No.:750/Chny/2025 opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चेɄई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 11th June, 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 "