SELVAM MAGESHWARI,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-5(3), CHENNAI

ITA 546/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Selvam Mageshwari, the appellant, who did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer, based on information from the 'Risk Management strategy' by CBDT, noted significant cash deposits and withdrawals by the assessee in two banks. Consequently, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued, leading to an assessment order that added Rs.3,74,94,600 to the assessee's income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-response to notices. The Tribunal, acknowledging the absence of the assessee's participation in the appellate proceedings, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125980 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: G. AKASH
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 144; 139(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी मनु कुमार िगᳯर, ᭠याियक सद᭭य एवं ᮰ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 546/Chny/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Selvam Mageshwari, No.29, Shastri Street, Moopanar Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai – 600 021. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 5(3), Chennai – 600 006. [PAN:AGQPM-7517-C] (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. G.Akash, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19, vide order dated 13.01.2025. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, has not filed return of income for the assessment :-2-: ITA. No: 546/Chny/2025 year 2018-19 u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As per the information flagged on ‘Risk Management strategy” formulated by CBDT, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made a cash deposits and cash withdrawals of huge amounts in Dena bank and The Karur vysya Bank ltd. and issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2022. The Assessing Officer had issued various notices from 31.03.2022 to 27.02.2023 and assessee has failed to respond to most of the notices and furnished certain information partially. Hence, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147of the Act on 23.03.2023 by making an addition of Rs.3,74,94,600/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. 3. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC issued notices to the assessee by providing an opportunity to submit the documents and evidence in support of the grounds of appeal filed from 16.10.2023 to 08.04.2024 as per para 4.2 of the ld.CIT(A) order. However, the assessee has failed to respond or submit any submissions before the appellate authorities and hence the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by dismissing the grounds of :-3-: ITA. No: 546/Chny/2025 appeal filed by the assessee by passing an order dated 13.01.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the order of the ld.CIT(A) has been passed without the participation of the assessee and hence prayed for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to prosecute the assessee’s appeal. 5. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and hence for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order by considering the information available and based on the AO’s order without the participation of assessee in the first appellate proceedings. We do not countenance this non chalant attitude of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. :-4-: ITA. No: 546/Chny/2025 7. In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 25th April, 2025 SP आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "