Santhanam Chinnasamy vs. ITO, Non-Corp Ward -6(1), Chennai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Santhanam Chinnasamy, did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made substantial cash deposits and received significant income from rent and professional/technical fees. The case was re-opened under section 147 of the Act, and the Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148, 144, and 144B. The assessee failed to respond to any notices, leading the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment ex-parte, making substantial additions to the assessee's income. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whose order was subsequently challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned?
• 2. Whether the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be set aside?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Varadharajan Gurusamy vs. ITO, Ward -1, Ramanathapuram

• Damyanti Atul Shah v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 20(1)(1)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• ITA No.7390/Mum/2025

  Mumbai benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Avadhesh Kumar Panday Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Niraj Kajaria vs Income Tax Officer

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2012-2013Partly Allowed

• Akshay Anand vs AO

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Allowed