CHOKKADEVAR ASAITHAMBI,CHENNAI vs. NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in passing the impugned order which is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case and further violative of the principles of equity, natural justice, and fair play. On principles of natural justice

For that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective. Chokkadevar Asaithambi

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal despite sufficient and bona fide reasons including serious illness, hospitalisation, and closure of business and non-receipt of notices.

For that the learned CIT (A), having discussed the matter on merits, erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, rendering the impugned order self-contradictory and untenable in law.

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the ex-parte reassessment completed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 without providing the Appellant an effective opportunity of being heard.

For that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessment was completed without proper enquiry or verification, thereby rendering the assessment arbitrary and unsustainable in law. On reopening & reassessment

For that the assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B is bad in law.

For that the learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the reassessment proceedings, notice issued under Section 148 and consequential assessment order are bad in law, without juri iction, barred by limitation, and liable to be quashed.

For that the notice issued u/s.148 lacks juri iction, since the same was not issued by the faceless Assessing Officer and consequently the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated merely on the basis of NMS/RMS information relating to cash deposits without independent application of mind or tangible material establishing escapement of income.

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated without sanction from the specified authority, thereby vitiating the entire assessment proceedings.

For that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and therefore the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. On Addition u/s.69A

For that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that section 69A is not applicable in the instant case.

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made under Section 69A without appreciating that ownership of the alleged unexplained money was never established by the Assessing Officer, which is a mandatory precondition for invocation of Section 69A.

For that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ignored material evidence establishing the true nature of the transactions, including affidavits of traders confirming that the Appellant acted merely as a commission agent/middleman and that the bank deposits represented pass-through business transactions belonging to third parties.

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the assessment of the entire bank credits as income of the Appellant without appreciating that only real income, if any, embedded in the transactions could be brought to tax and that the gross deposits merely represented circulating business turnover. Chokkadevar Asaithambi

For that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed on mere assumptions and surmises, without proper enquiry, verification, or consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances, and is therefore liable to be quashed.

For that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that bank statement does not constitute as the books of account of appellant, and thus the impugned addition u/s.69A is bad in law.

For that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the application of Section 115BBE without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that these grounds are taken without prejudice to one and another and the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing. May this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: a) Quash the assessment order dated 25/10/2023; and / or b) Delete the addition u/s.69A; and/or c) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return, specific information was flagged in this matter as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the Board that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 6,21,80,060/- in his bank account during the year under consideration. Based on this information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 01.04.2022. Still there was no compliance by the assessee against notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Ultimately, case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs. 6, 21, 80,060/- u/s. 69A of the Act vide order dated: 25.10.2023. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee of the assessee on the ground of delay, i.e. the appeal filed was time barred by 482 days. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us.

We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee along with grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee has submitted the copies of the returns filed from A.Y.s 2017-18 to 2024-25. Although for the year under consideration neither return was filed nor any compliance was made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and can’t be a party in the appeal hearings because of non-admission of the same, albeit Chokkadevar Asaithambi the assessee tried to explain the reasons vide para 7.1 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. The assessee submitted certain documents in the form of discharge summary etc. from the hospital to substantiate his claim for delay in filing of appeal.

As a substantial order is not there before us, i.e. both the orders of the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) is either ex-parte or dis-missed in limine because of delay in filing the same. Additions in the case of the assessee is quite substantial and certainly imposed a heavy burden of tax as well as consequential penalty etc. on the assessee and we being the final fact-finding authority, has an endeavour to examine the matter on merits as far as possible. Hence, considering the post A.Y. 2015-16 conduct of the assessee in filing of return and to have a last fair chance of representing his matter, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to hear the matter de-novo after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard as per the provisions of section 282 of the Act and the assessee is also directed to be vigilant and cooperative enough this time before the AO, while participating in the hearing for assessment without fail and seeking any adjournment.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions to both the sides.