Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.
अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G., Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2017-18 Thangarasu Manimaran, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No. 15 4th Avenue, Malligai Flat, Income Tax, Dr. Seethapathy Nagar Extn., Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Velachery 600 042, Tamil Nadu. Chennai. [PAN: AIQPM7994M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 18.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 27.07.2023 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 reporting the taxable income at ₹.31,69,180/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] vide intimation order dated 27.02.2019. While passing the order, the CPC disallowed a sum of ₹.1,36,20,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for want of deduction of tax at source. During the AY under consideration, the assessee had purchased three lands/properties which were shown in the balance sheet under the schedule “Current Assets”. While making the payment towards above purchase, the assessee had not deducted tax at source under section 194IA of the Act. The above fact was also stated in the Tax Audit Report filed under section 44AB of the Act. Based on the tax audit report filed under section 44AB of the Act, an amount of ₹.1,36,20,000/- being 30% of the amount paid without deduction of tax at source in terms of section 194IA of the Act was disallowed while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 169 days by furnishing reasons for condonation of delay in Form No. 35. Since the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the reasons furnished by the assessee was very vague, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, he was unable to file the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) within the time provided under the Act. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and the assessee may be afforded an opportunity to substantiate his case.
On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A). The appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal and also furnished reasons for condonation of delay in Form No. 35 filed by the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find that in support of the condonation of delay, the assessee has not filed any affidavit. In view of the above facts, we direct the assessee to file fresh condonation petition along with an affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay and the same may be considered by ld. CIT(A) liberally and pass order in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31st October, 2023 at Chennai.