RAJARATHINAM SADAYAPPAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-4(5), CHENNAI

ITA 1341/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mr. Rajarathinam Sadayappan against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-/NFAC, Chennai/Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 647 days due to health issues and was admitted after condonation. The primary issues in the appeal arose from discrepancies in reported income and cash deposits during the demonetization period, which were scrutinized under CASS. The CIT(A) had dismissed the initial appeal due to lack of evidence from the assessee, who failed to produce necessary documents to substantiate his claims. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the need for a fair hearing, remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711424 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRENIK CHORDIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Salary income

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1341/Chny/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Rajarathinam Sadayappan, 11, Grace Garden, 5th Street, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013. v. The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-4(5), Chennai. [PAN: AKRPS 5812 K] (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Shrenik Chordia, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईकᳱतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणाकᳱतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-/NFAC, (in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Chennai/Delhi, dated 26.05.2023 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The registry has noted delay of ‘647’ days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated (Covid-19 infection, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1341/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Rajarathinam Sadayappan :: 2 :: Diabetes & hypertension) in the condonation petition which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Rajarathinam Sadayappan, working in Madras Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Chennai filed Original Return of income (RoI) for the AY 2017-18 on 18.07.2017 electronically, admitting total income of Rs.4,07,050/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposit during demonetization period and difference in salary income less than the salary income as per 26AS. However, before the ld.CIT(A), assessee did appear and assessee was not able to produce evidence, hence the ld.CIT(A) proceeded on merits and dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of AO. Hence, assessee is further in appeal before us. 4. Before us also, the ld. Counsel submitted that while adjudicating the matter the ld. CIT(A) or AO has not given the proper opportunity to file the evidences filed before the AO/CIT(A). He further pleaded that for one more opportunity to file the evidence before the CIT(A) or AO. The Ld. Addl. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not filed supporting evidences with regard to the addition before the ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1341/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Rajarathinam Sadayappan :: 3 :: 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submission addressed by the ld. Departmental Representative. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.AO to file all relevant evidences/documents to prosecute his case. Even no evidence and no explanation were filed before the AO. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.AO for de novo adjudication. The Ld.AO who shall proceed for de novo assessment after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings as per law. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on the 21st day of July, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated: 21st July, 2025. TLN, Sr.PS 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1341/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Rajarathinam Sadayappan :: 4 :: 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "