Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Solaimalai Ramasamy,Sivaganga vs Dcit, Ncc-1, Madurai on 7 April, 2026
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'ए' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी मनु कुमार ग र, या यक सद य एवं ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद य के सम#
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.139/CHNY/2026
( नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year:2020-21)
Solaimalai Ramasamy, The Deputy Commissioner of
A-56 Raja Street, vs. Income Tax,
Nemathanpatti B.O, Kayampatti, Non-Corp Circle-1,
Sivaganga - 630 103. Madurai.
[PAN:AKMPR-7070-F]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent)
अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate and
Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate
'(यथ& क) ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई क) तार ख/Date of Hearing : 17.03.2026
घोषणा क) तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2026
आदे श / O R D E R
PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 27.11.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short "ld.CIT(A)") for the assessment year (A.Y) 2020-21 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') passed by the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated 08.11.2024.
:-2-: ITA No. 139/Chny/2026
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for A.Y.2020-21 along with Audit Report in Form 3CEB by declaring total income of Rs.14,36,720/-. Based on the information received from the department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee made various financial transactions including cash withdrawals (TDS Form 26Q, Section 194N) to the tune of Rs.25,95,37,200/- during A.Y.2020-21. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2024. In response, the assessee failed to file the return of income for the year under consideration. Further, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee and called for details. In response, the assessee submitted a reply along with the supporting documents for consideration. On perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made the additions of Rs.17,000/- as fees for professional services (PGBP) and amount of Rs.14,400/- as income from other sources and amount of Rs.43,92,412/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 08.11.2024.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 29.11.2024.
4. 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) passed an order dated 27.11.2025 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.
:-3-: ITA No. 139/Chny/2026
5. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee did not regularly check the email and e-filing portal during the relevant period and hence the assessee was not aware of the hearing notices issued by the first appellate authority and hence the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of the 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 Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.
6. 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).
7. 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 order by considering the information available with the department and the documents submitted by the assessee and on appeal the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee.
8. Therefore, 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 on merits 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.
:-4-: ITA No. 139/Chny/2026
9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07th April, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(मनु कुमार ग र) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा)
(MANU KUMAR GIRI) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA)
या यक सद य/Judicial Member लेखासद य/Accountant Member
चे ई/Chennai,
िदनां क/Dated, the 07th April, 2026
JPV
आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3.आयकर आयु /CIT- Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.04.08 15:48:47 +05'30'