C VADIVELU,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CUDDALORE

The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of running petrol bunk by name MCV & Sons and the assessee is also executing contract works for Public Works Department. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2022-23 on 29.12.2022 declaring total income of Rs.1,99,51,730/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that the assessee has claimed large other expenses. The AO called on the assessee to furnish various details and the assessee furnished the details from time to time. The A.O after considering the replies filed by the assessee was of the view that the assessee has not provided any evidences with regard to the expenses claimed and that mere submission of ledger accounts of the expenses do not substantiate the claim of expenses. Therefore, the AO disallowed 10% of the other expenses claimed by the assessee to make an addition of Rs. 4,91,65,317/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear and did not furnish any details in response to the various notices issued. The CIT(A) therefore dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

There is a delay of 413 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the assessee is not well aware of income tax proceedings and the tax consultant did not provide proper support due to which there is a delay. The assessee accordingly prayed that the reasons for delay are not deliberate and beyond the control of the assessee. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not aware of the income tax proceedings and completely relied on his counsel for handling the tax matters. The Ld. AR further submitted that the counsel of the assessee did not provide proper professional support and therefore the assessee could not represent the case properly before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity with an undertaking that the case would be represented properly if given the opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to call for necessary details and also call for a remand report as may be required including support from the verification unit to decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.