Krishnan Gopikrishnan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
In Krishnan Gopikrishnan vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Chennai), the assessee appealed against the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on February 10, 2024, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal stemmed from an earlier order by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had made additions of Rs. 24,74,680 to the income, including Rs. 14,56,000 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, related to unexplained demonetization cash deposits. The assessee argued that the AO had issued notices to an inactive email ID, preventing them from receiving any communication regarding the assessment, thus hindering their ability to respond or provide the required documents to explain the cash deposits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recognized the violation of natural justice, acknowledging that the notices were sent to an inactive email ID and the assessee had not been provided an adequate opportunity to present their case. Citing the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to conduct a fresh de novo assessment. The AO was instructed to hear the assessee, consider relevant documents and submissions, and pass an order in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring the assessee would have the opportunity to present their case fully.
