RAVI BALARAMAN(REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR- MR. R.S. LOGESHWARA,CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORP WARD-22(4), CHENNAI

ITA 4152/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal heir of Late Ravi Balaraman against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was directed against the assessment order which included substantial cash deposits in the bank account of the deceased, assessed under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The FAA had dismissed the initial appeal due to alleged non-response to hearing notices, which was contested by the assessee's representative. The Tribunal found that the FAA had erred in dismissing the appeal without proper consideration of the responses submitted by the assessee and had incorrectly referenced a penalty order from a different assessment year and case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839099 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. ASWATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: B. RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी इंटूरȣ रामा राव, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 4152/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Ravi Balaraman, (Rep. by Legal Heir Shri R.S. Logeshwara), No.1/79, Pillayar Koil Street, Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100. PAN: AVNPR 1591D Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(4), Tambaram, Chennai (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4152/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act vide order dated 31.01.2024. In the said assessment order, addition was made with regard to cash deposits made in the bank account amounting to Rs.1,97,27,250/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.01.2024, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a delay of 550 days (Column No.14 of Form No.35). The FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 26.12.2025 by stating that assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. 4. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had responded to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. Copy of responses filed by the assessee to the hearing notices issued from the office of FAA are placed on record. Further, the Ld.AR by referring to page 2 of the impugned order submitted that the FAA has erred in dismissing / non-adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee by wrongly referring to a penalty order dated 27.09.2024 u/s.270A of the Act for the assessment year 2022-23 in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4152/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: the case of another assessee’s appeal. In this context, the Ld.AR submitted that there has been total non-application of mind by the FAA and has erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld.DR was duly heard. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA has rejected the appeal of the assessee by observing assessee has not responded to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. The Ld.AR has placed on record the assessee’s response to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. Therefore, the FAA has erred in stating that assessee has not responded to the hearing notices. Moreover, from the impugned order, it is clear that grounds raised before FAA by the assessee has not been adjudicated. The FAA has referred to the order of the AO imposing penalty u/s.270A of the Act for misreporting of income, which is not the issue raised by the assessee before the FAA. The FAA has erred in the impugned order by referring to the assessment year 2022-23 and the order imposing penalty u/s.270A, which does not arise on the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore, we set aside the order of FAA and restore the matter to the files of the FAA. The FAA is directed to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4152/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: adjudicate the issues raised before him after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरȣ रामा राव) (INTURI RAMA RAO) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 18th February, 2026 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "