SASIKUMAR KANAGARAJAN ,NAMAKKAL V. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

ITA 3447/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sasikumar Kanagarajan against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Namakkal, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was initially delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the assessee attributed to the negligence of his accountant. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unreported income and unexplained cash deposits. The assessee did not respond to the notices, leading to an ex parte order by the AO. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal due to non-participation. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the need for justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834353 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR CHANDAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATRAMAN; F
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; TDS

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘सी’ \u000fयायपीठ, चे\u000fनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0016ी एबी ट वक\u001b, \u000fया यक सद य एवं \u0016ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद य क े सम% BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.3447/CHNY/2025 नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sasikumar Kanagarajan, 4/642, A-1, Andavar Nagar, Trichy Road, Namakkal – 637 001. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Namakkal. [PAN: BDNPS-5612-R] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( क+ ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. )*यथ( क+ ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT सुनवाई क+ तार ख/Date of Hearing : 20.01.2026 घोषणा क+ तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 17.04.2024, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2012-13 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 25.09.2021. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3447/Chny/2025 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 513 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that Mr. Kavin, Accountant, Namakkal maintained the books of accounts of the assessee and failed to take action during the appellate proceedings due to COVID-19 Pandemic and the assessee became aware only after freezing of bank accounts by the Income Tax Department. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both 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 A.Y.2012-13. Based on the information available with the department, the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.47,57,740/- into his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Namakkal. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee and called for details, but the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. On perusal of the data available from the department, the AO found that the assessee has received contract receipts from various parties to the tune of Rs.8,77,990/- during the year under consideration on which no TDS has been made u/s.194C of the Act. Further, the assessee did not explain the source of cash deposit also. Hence, the AO made additions by arriving at a total income of Rs.54,25,730 for the A.Y 2012-13 and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.09.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 19.01.2022. 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) orders to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3447/Chny/2025 silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 17.04.2024 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. The ld.AR submitted that the accountant of the assessee had not checked the income tax portal and its email ID during the relevant period and hence the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not appear and submit the valid evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.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 order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A), we levy the cost of Rs.20,000/- 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 in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3447/Chny/2025 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी ट वक\u001b ) (ABY T VARKEY) \u000fया यक सद य/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member चे\u000fनई Chennai: /दनांक Dated : 04th February, 2026 sp आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल प अ\u000fे षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ(/Appellant 2. )*यथ(/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु0त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. 1वभागीय ) त न ध/DR 5. गाड& फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "