PONNUSAMY ANANDHAKUMAR,NAMAKKAL V. ITO, WARD-2, NAMAKKAL

ITA 354/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ponnusamy Anandhakumar, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was necessitated due to the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) because the appellant did not respond to the notices, which were allegedly delivered to his spam account. The AO had also issued several notices, leading to an ex parte order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in significant additions to the appellant's income. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances of non-receipt of notices, decided to give the appellant another opportunity to present his case before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396958 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• 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: KEERTHI NARAYANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S.LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.354/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ponnusamy Anandhakumar, 4/8, Allalapuram, Bommampatty Post, Namakkal-637 212. v. The ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal. [PAN: AOKPA 6674 G] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 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 referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 09.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2017-18. ITA No.354/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Ponnusamy Anandhakumar :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order qua assessee since the assessee didn’t respond to his notices, therefore, he prays for one more opportunity. Further, he also pointed out that assessment has also been framed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act”) [best judgment assessment]. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee was not able to participate before the AO, because, the notices got delivered in the ‘spam’ account of the assessee and therefore, assessee was not aware of such notices, which resulted in the AO framing ex parte order and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the AO by 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). 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee since the assessee didn’t comply with the notices issued by the AO/Ld.CIT(A). 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order, because, the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices and finding no response from the assessee he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the addition. Likewise, the AO is noted to have issued several notices which the assessee states to have not received which ITA No.354/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Ponnusamy Anandhakumar :: 3 :: resulted in the AO framing ex parte order [order u/s.144 of the Act] by adding the entire cash deposits during the demonetization period u/s.69A of the Act i.e. Rs.18,82,500/- and computed the business income at 8% of the balance deposits of Rs.3,29,36,036/- i.e. Rs.26,34,883/-. Thus, made a total addition of Rs.45,17,383/-. Since the assessee has pleaded non-receipt of the notices either by post or by e-mail and has filed an affidavit to state so, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in view of the undertaken given by the Ld.AR of the assessee, Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, whose e-mail ID is: [e-mail] who has undertaken to appear/file all relevant documents before the AO. 5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO and direct him to frame de novo assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. Since there is negligence on the part of the assessee, cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed which the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and thereafter, the AO to frame the de novo assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. ITA No.354/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Ponnusamy Anandhakumar :: 4 :: 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 26th day of May, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 26th May, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "