SINGARAVELU RAJARAJAN,PUDUCHERRY V. ITO WARD 2, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 1581/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Singaravelu Rajarajan, an individual and partner in M/s.Gowri Lakshmi Silks, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act and issued notices under section 148, which were not responded to by the assessee. Consequently, an exparte order was passed under section 144, adding Rs. 62,44,300 as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed due to non-participation. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714298 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRII. R.V. ARUN PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,‘डी’ न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज क े, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1581/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Singaravelu Rajarajan, No.120, Gowrissilks, Nehru Street, Puducherry– 605 001. vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Puducherry. [PAN:AKSPR-5244-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Hitesh, Advocate for Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Shrii. R.V. Arun Prasad, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : 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 2011-12, vide order dated 31.10.2023. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 516 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the mother of the assessee was handling all income tax related matters and unaware of the order of the AO as well as ld.CIT(A). Only on demise of his mother and on receipt of the notice from the department, he became aware that Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No:1581/Chny/2025 the appeal was not filed and immediately taken steps to file the present appeal. The counsel of the assessee filed the appeal on 30.05.2025. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and partner in firm M/s.Gowri Lakshmi Silks and had not filed his return of income for the A.Y.2011-12. As per the ITS details, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.62,44,300/- in his bank account maintained in Indusind Bank Ltd. and the assessee has not disclosed the source of income for assessment by filing a return of income for the A.Y.2011-12. The AO reopened the case u/s.147 of the Act and issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 16.03.2018 after obtaining the approval of the ld.PCIT, Pondicherry. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. Therefore, show-cause notices dated 25.09.2018 and 12.10.2018 were issued upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notices issued from time to time. The AO concluded the assessment by passing an exparte order u/s.144 of the Act dated 04.12.2018 by adding the amount of Rs.62,44,300/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 5. Before the ld.CIT(A) also, the assessee has neither filed written submissions nor filed any documentary evidence in support of his claim, in spite many opportunities provided by the ld.CIT(A) as per para 2 of its order from the year 2022 till 2023. Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No:1581/Chny/2025 Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR submitted that notices were issued during the assessment and appellate proceedings by the AO as well as ld.CIT(A) to the Email ID and through portal and the assessee could not see his portal, since the assessee’s mother was looking after his income tax matters. Hence, the appeal was not prosecuted before the ld.CIT(A) even the assessment order was passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act by the AO. Therefore, ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO in the interest of natural justice. Further, the ld.AR assured the bench that he will undertake to represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO, in case one more opportunity is provided. 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 Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi due to non- participation of the assessee before the first appellate authority. Since the assessee has failed to participate both before the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- 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. Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA. No:1581/Chny/2025 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 de novo frame the assessment order in accordance to 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. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 05th August, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated, the 05th August, 2025 jk आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि/DR 5. गार्ज फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "