OSURAN RAJAMANICKAM,CHENNAI V. ITO, WARD-2, , KANCHEEPURAM

ITA 871/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Osuran Rajamanickam against the orders of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kanchipuram, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi. The primary issues under dispute were the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs. 20,60,000 for unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and Rs. 39,09,690 for unexplained capital accretion. The assessee contended that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal found that the AO's order lacked detailed reasoning and did not adequately address the facts, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633477 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: TIN box 249 ITR 216
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAM S.MUKUNDAN; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSHITA JOTHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.871/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Osuran Rajamanickam, No.1/A, Magalai Street, Mudichur Road , Old Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063. [PAN: BZBPR0488N] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kanchipuram. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.Joshita Jothi, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, IRS 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 AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2022-23 / 1049597942(1) dated 09.02.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 697 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has ITA No. 871 /Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 5 pleaded that the assesse is a small time business man and an uneducated person. It has been stated that he was unaware of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) as no physical copy was provided and the email ID could not be accessed. No details were provided by the then attending chartered accountant . It has been further contended that the assessee and his wife has been suffering from various health issues requiring frequent hospitalization. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither wilful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay except that cost be imposed upon the assessee. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities the Ld.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex- parte orders in case of the assessee who is a small time business man. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.20,60,000, on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period and of Rs. 39,09,690/- on account of unexplained capital accretion. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITA No. 871 /Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 5 Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication. The Ld. Counsel assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities. It was however simultaneously pleaded that costs be imposed upon the appellant for wasting the time of the Bench. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order, he had given opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition. We have however noted that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee. ITA No. 871 /Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 5 5.1 We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of deposits in assessee’s bank account and in capital account lies at the core of the controversy. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The assessing officer is the primary authority under the income tax act to be examine facts of a case in the light of available evidences before determining correct taxable income of a tax payer. We therefore set aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and we direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. We however find force in the argument of the Ld. DR that assessee’s repeated non-compliance has indeed caused loss of precious time of the statutory authorities. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision ITA No. 871 /Chny/2025 Page - 5 - of 5 qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. Without prejudice it has also been noted that in this case the Ld. AO did not have adequate opportunities to examine the varied facts seminal therein. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Consequently, the decision to remit the matter to the Ld. AO is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11th , June-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (ABY T VARKEY) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 11th , June-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF "