SANTHANAM CHINNASAMY,SALEM V. ITO, NCW-6(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2498/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Santhanam Chinnasamy, the appellant, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer, based on departmental information, noted significant cash deposits and income receipts which were not reported. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and despite multiple notices, the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision due to non-participation of the assessee. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the assessee's lack of awareness of the notices, decided to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for the assessee to be diligent in responding to future notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826418 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR; ERODE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘बी’ \u000eयायपीठ, चे\u000eनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0015ी जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े, उपा\u001aय\u001b एवं \u0015ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद%य क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2498/Chny/2025 'नधा\u0018रण वष\u0018 / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Santhanam Chinnasamy, New No.95-A, SIPCOT Housing Colony, Dharga, Hosur – 635 109. vs. ITO, Non-Corp Ward -6(1), Chennai. [PAN:ACPPS-8209-L] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode). *+यथ) क, ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई क, तार ख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क, तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, vide order dated 18.07.2024. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 345 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the said delay occurred on account of medical reasons. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing to both Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No:2498/Chny/2025 parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.1,22,86,700/- into his Current Account and Rs.25,25,000/- in other than Current Account, has received rent of Rs.10,64,268/- and professional/technical fees of Rs.2,81,000/- during the A.Y.2017-18. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act and statutory notices to the assessee and called for details. The assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. Since the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 31.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.1,48,11,700/- and Rs.43,31,358/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.7,44,988/- as income from house property and Rs.2,81,000/- as income from business/profession and arrived a total income of Rs.2,01,69,046/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC on 08.05.2022. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 4 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No:2498/Chny/2025 order of the AO by passing an order dated 18.07.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not regularly checked the income tax portal and his email and hence he was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively. 7. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an ex-parte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A). Since, the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer as well as the first appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities. 9. In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA. No:2498/Chny/2025 reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th January, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपा\u001aय\u001b /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद%य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u000eनई/Chennai, 0दनांक/Dated, the 05th January, 2026 SP आदेश क, *'त2ल3प अ4े3षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ)/Appellant 2. *+यथ)/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु5त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. 3वभागीय *'त'न ध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "