MURUGESAN KRISHNAKUMAR,KARUR V. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

ITA 1359/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Murugesan Krishnakumar, who deposited a substantial amount of Rs. 67,90,000 in his savings account but failed to file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued an ex-parte assessment order adding the entire amount as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity to present his case at both the AO and CIT(A) levels, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711786 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N.V. LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद! एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! क े सम( BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1359/Chny/2025 िनधा :रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Murugesan Krishnakumar, No.44/7, Thanirpanthalpalayam, Manmankalam, Karur – 639 002. [PAN: ATSPK 6545R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karur. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 07.11.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 28.02.2024. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1359/Chny/2025 Murugesan Krishnakumar :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 102 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 67,90,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with UCO Bank but did not file a return of income for the relevant Assessment Year. Consequently, the A.O. passed an ex-parte assessment order, making an addition of Rs.67,90,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits, as the assessee failed to furnish any details despite being given sufficient opportunities. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has issued several notices, but the assessee failed to make any submission to the notices issued and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte. 4. The Ld. A.R has contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee either before A.O or before Ld. CIT(A) and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1359/Chny/2025 Murugesan Krishnakumar :- 3 -: both the orders have been passed ex-pare and therefore, the case may be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration in the interest of justice. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the A.O of cash deposits of Rs.67,90,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, due to the non- compliance of the notices issued. The assessment order has also been passed ex-parte. In our considered opinion, and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A) subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. 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 Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1359/Chny/2025 Murugesan Krishnakumar :- 4 -: Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th day of July, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0011ाियक सद! / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 24th July, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Madurai 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "