MUNUSAMY MUTHU,PILLAPPAKKAM vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, KANCHEEPURAM

The Appellant respectfully submits the following Grounds of Appeal, each of which is without prejudice to one another:

The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts, circumstances of the case, principles of natural justice, and probabilities of the case. Munusamy Muthu

The Learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing adequate and sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to substantiate the case on merits. The primary issue involved in this is, the assessee hailing from rural background, without having much knowledge in technology was served all the hearing notices through email, even though it was specifically mentioned in the petition, Form 35 that the communications may not be sent on email.

The Respected CIT (A) missed to consider, the health conditions of the assessee. The assessee being a chronic patient, admitted in hospital on and off, consistently for serious health ailments and due to these continuous survival challenges, the assessee missed to furnish submissions to the learned CIT (A) which he sincerely apologises to this revered authority

The Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from making effective appearance/ furnish submissions before the appellate authority and therefore the order passed deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.

Factually, The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.90,00,000 towards alleged unexplained investment in immovable property without properly appreciating the explanations, evidences, surrounding circumstances, and materials available on record. The assessee has all the evidences and materials to substantiate the sources for purchase of property which he cordially prays one opportunity to be granted to him for substantiating the entire sources behind the purchase of the property

The Learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the addition made towards the alleged investment of Rs.90,00,000 is arbitrary, excessive, unsustainable in law, and liable to be deleted.

The Learned Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provisions relating to unexplained investment without establishing that the Appellant had actually made investment out of undisclosed sources.

The Learned Authorities below failed to appreciate that the impugned addition has been made merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises, and conjectures without bringing any corroborative material on record.

The Learned Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in treating the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual purchase consideration as income from other sources.

The Learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not automatic in nature and cannot be invoked mechanically without proper examination of the factual aspects surrounding the transaction.

The Learned Authorities failed to appreciate that the stamp duty valuation adopted by the registration authorities does not conclusively represent the fair market value of the property. The Learned Assessing Officer ought to have referred the valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under the relevant provisions before adopting the stamp duty value for the purpose of making addition. Munusamy Muthu

The Learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the property was purchased under peculiar facts and circumstances warranting consideration of the actual transaction value.

The Learned Authorities failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs.41, 90,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii) (b) is bad in law, contrary to facts, and liable to be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Assessing Officer failed to grant appropriate relief as contemplated under the provisos, tolerance limits, beneficial interpretation, and settled judicial principles applicable to valuation-related additions.

The assessee prays to this most revered authority to grant him one final opportunity to enable him to substantiate the source behind the investment in the property to the tune of Rs.90, 00,000/- and also to corroborate that there is no necessity to invoke the provisions of section 56(2) (Vii) of the act to add difference between value adopted and stamp duty value of the property purchase to an extent of Rs. 41, 90,000/-

The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, withdraw, or raise any further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is amongst the non-filers of return, but the Revenue was in possession of information about purchase of immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 90 Lacs on 05.01.2016 by the assessee during the year under consideration. Based on this information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued u/s. 148 of the Act on 22.07.2022, but there was no compliance by the assessee against the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Ultimately, case of the assessee was assessed after making additions of Rs. 90 Lacs u/s. 69 of the Act and Rs. 41.90 Lacs u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being difference between actual transaction value declared by the assessee and value as determined by the Stamp Value Authorities. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an Munusamy Muthu appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as there was delay in filing of the appeal by 725 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 both the orders of the AO and the Ld. CIT (A) are not on merits, either ex-parte or dismissed in limine. Being the final fact-finding authority, our endeavour is to promote substantive hearings and proceedings at all level. This fact is unchallenged on record that the assessee was non-compliant before the AO and there was an inordinate delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). But, as mentioned (supra), we are of the opinion that one last final opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent his case de-novo before the AO. In view of this, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to rehear the matter after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard as per the provisions of section 282 of the Act and the assessee is directed to be vigilant and cooperative enough this time without fail and seeking any adjournment. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes with above directions.

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