VARADHARAJAN GURUSAMY ,RAMANATHAPURAM V. ITO, WARD-1, RAMANATHAPURAM

ITA 3015/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Varadharajan Gurusamy, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary issue arose from the non-declaration of income from the sale of sites, which led to a re-assessment under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer initially completed the assessment ex-parte due to the appellant's non-participation, adding a significant amount as Short Term Capital Gain. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to similar non-participation. The Tribunal, considering the appellant's medical reasons for non-participation and the lack of proper representation, decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826519 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARV SREENIVASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R. TULSIRAM; KUMAR SUBRAMANIAN; ADVOCATES
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘डी’ \u000eयायपीठ, चे\u000eनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0015ी मनु क ुमार ग\u0019र, \u000eया\u001aयक सद य एवं \u0015ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद य क े सम$ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:3015/Chny/2025 \u001aनधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Varadharajan Gurusamy, 64/1-H Balasubramani Koil North Street, Ramanathapuram – 623 501. vs. ITO, Ward -1, Ramanathapuram. [PAN:ASEPG-7218-G] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. R. Tulsiram & Mr. Kumarsubramanian, Advocates ()यथ' क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT. सुनवाई क* तार ख/Date of Hearing : 16.12.2025 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)-8, Mumbai, (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12, vide order dated 06.03.2025. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 121 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 parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No:3015/Chny/2025 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 has filed his return of income on 29.12.2017 for AY 2011-12, admitting a total income of Rs.1,78,563/-. As per the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee sold many sites at Surankottai Village to the tune of Rs.14,79,580/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and thus income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessee failed to declare these transactions and hence the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued and the case has been re-opened u/s.147 of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence. Since the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer dated 29.12.2017 u/s.144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.14,39,130/- as Short Term Capital Gain and arrived a total income of Rs.16,17,689/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), on 13.02.2018. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided eight opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 1.1 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 order of the AO by passing an order dated 06.03.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No:3015/Chny/2025 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). The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the Capital Gains from the sale of the lands in the assessment year 2011-12. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased 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 he 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 dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), 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.2,000/- 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:3015/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/- (मनु क ुमार ग\u0019र) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) \u000eया\u001aयक सद य/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member चे\u000eनई/Chennai, /दनांक/Dated, the 05th January, 2026 SP आदेश क* (\u001aत1ल2प अ3े2षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ'/Appellant 2. ()यथ'/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु4त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. 2वभागीय (\u001aत\u001aन ध/DR 5. गाड% फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "