RAMESH,TUTICORIN V. ITO WARD 2, , TUTICORIN

ITA 301/CHNY/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Ramesh, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had not filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18, despite having substantial financial transactions. Upon reopening the assessment, the A.O made additions to the assessee's income based on a percentage of the reported turnover, treating the return as non-est and not allowing the set off of the declared loss. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the assessee's reliance on his counsel, decided to remit the case back to the A.O for a fresh assessment and imposed a cost on the assessee for his non-compliance with procedural requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847366 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIPIN C.N
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Section: 148; 2

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ा यपीठ, चे\u0012ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0015ी जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े, उपा \u001a\u001b एवं सु\u0015ी पदमा वती यस, लेखा सद$ क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.301/Chny/2026 िनधा \u0018रण वष\u0018 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh, 20/69, 5th Street, Roche Colony, Tuticorin – 628 001. PAN: ALCPR 8245B Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tuticorin. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीला थ( की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate *+थ( की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 19.03.2026 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short \"CIT(A)\") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short \"the Act\") dated 30.10.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The A.O received information that the assessee has entered into substantial financial transactions during the year under consideration. Since, the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.301/Chny/2026 Ramesh :- 2 -: notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 26.10.2024 declaring a loss of Rs. 17,34,105/-. The assessee did not file proper response to the notices issued by the A.O calling for the details pertaining to the financial transactions entered into by the assessee. The A.O therefore made an addition by applying 8% of the turnover reported by the assessee in return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act to make an addition of Rs. 61,05,339/-. The A.O while doing so treated the return filed by the assessee as non-est and did not allow the set off of loss as declared in the return of income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small trader in raw fish and not aware of the income tax proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee completely relied on his counsel for handling the tax matters and the counsel of the assessee did not provide proper professional support. The ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore, remit the appeal back to the A.O for fresh consideration of the impugned additions by calling for relevant details as may be required to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The assessee directed to file any further details as may be called for with regard to the impugned additions made by the AO and cooperate with assessment proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.301/Chny/2026 Ramesh :- 3 -: 4. Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. 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 A.O. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th day of March, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े) (George George K) उपा \u001a\u001b / Vice President (पदमा वती यस) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 24th March, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "