SUBRAMANIAN RAMANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, PUDUKKOTTAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 864/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 February 2023AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principle of natural justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 22.33 Lacs in bank accounts during demonetization. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and made an addition on a best judgment basis. The assessee failed to make submissions before the CIT(A) despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the lower appellate authority, despite previous negligence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B/SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23-05-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 31-12-2019. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 96 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee wherein it has been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor wanton. It has also been ITA No.864/Chny/2022 - 2 - submitted that the assessee being a senior citizen was residing in a remote undeveloped area where there was no access to internet facility to respond to e-proceedings. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, considering the above stated facts, I hold that delay deserve to be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

3.

Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.22.33 Lacs in certain bank accounts during demonetization period. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to prove the source of the same. After considering assessee’s submissions, Ld. AO alleged that the books of accounts were manipulated and the same were not reliable. Finally, rejecting the books of account, the assessment was framed on best judgment basis u/s 144 and total income was determined at Rs.26.18 Lacs after adding cash deposited by the assessee in Specified Bank Notes (SBN). Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, it failed to make any submissions during appellate proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities as enumerated in para 5.1 of the impugned order. In the result, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities.

4.

I find that the assessee has remained negligent to make any representation before Ld. CIT(A). However, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, I deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable - 3 - opportunity of hearing. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its claim.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th February, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →