RATHI GAJENDRAN,TUTICORIN V. ITO, WARD-1, TUTICORIN

ITA 1910/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rathi Gajendran, the appellant, who purchased immovable property worth Rs. 54,06,160 during the Assessment Year 2015-16 but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, followed by a notice under Section 148 after the assessee failed to respond. The assessee filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice, declaring an income of Rs. 5,67,280, which was added by the Assessing Officer as income from unexplained investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal, which raised issues of legality, jurisdiction, and adequacy of opportunities provided to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773916 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ \u0010ा यपीठ चे\u0015ई म\u0018। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1910/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Rathi Gajendran, 138J, Ellayarasanendal Road Near Clubh, Kovilpatti Thoothukudi-628501. PAN No. BIRPR 3787 H Vs. I.T.O., Ward-2, Tuticorin. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT. Date of hearing 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 26/09/2025 PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 23/06/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 as per ground of appeal on record. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs. 54,06,160/-, however, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 26/03/2022 asking the assessee that why notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued in the case of assessee after getting approval from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. No response, however, was received from the assessee and therefore, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA1910/Chny/2025 Rathi Gajendran Vs ITO notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to file the return of income. The assessee accordingly filed return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 5,67,280/- as shown in the income tax return filed under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also treated entire amount of Rs. 54,06,160/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment in the said property. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. 5. Now before us, the assessee raised a legal issue that the reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2015-16 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and also barred by limitation and also claimed the sufficient opportunities were not provided to the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the genuineness of the said transaction. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and found that the legal issue has been raised before this Tribunal for the first time and no such issue was raised before the ld. IT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving adequate Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA1910/Chny/2025 Rathi Gajendran Vs ITO opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai Printed from counselvise.com "