R.SAROJA DEVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 09.03.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 R.Saroja Devi .. Appellant in all the appeals Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward-I[1], Thanjavur.

.. Respondent in all the appeals COMMON PRAYER:- Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reverse the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ''A'' SMC Bench, Chennai, dated 19.11.2018 made in ITA.Nos.1923/Chny/2018 ; 1924/Chny/2018 ; 1925/Chny/2018 ; and 1926/Chny/2018 and allow the appeals. For Appellant in all the Appeals : Mr.R.Karunakaran For Respondent in all the Appeals : Mrs.S.Hemalatha for Mr.M.Swaminathan 1/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,] (1)By consent, both the Tax Case Appeals are taken up together for final hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment. (2)The facts, briefly narrated and relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals, are as follows:- 1. The appellant/assessee was married to Thiru.A.K.Rajaraman, who was employed in a Textile shop, in the year 1976, at the time of the marriage. The appellant/assessee claimed that she received nearly Rs.1,00,000/- of marriage presents from her relatives and friends and she in turn, entrusted the same to her husband and utilizing the same, her husband started manufacturing home made silk sarees by using his own looms. The appellant/assessee filed her Returns of Income after a survey in the premises of her husband for the first time in the year 1995-96. The Income Tax Officer added the entire capital as ''unexplained'' for the Assessment Years 1995-96. 2. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], granted a part relief. The appellant/assessee also suffered the addition of some amounts for the Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The appellant/assessee had filed four appeals with a delay of 374 2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 days and she cited the reason that she had undergone depression and mental agony caused by her son-in-law by inflicting torture upon her daughter and the kid born out of the marriage, was also brought by her and ultimately, the marriage between her daughter and her son-in- law ended in divorce and that apart, her brother-in-law had also passed away, leaving his wife and two children in distress and the appellant/assessee has to take care of them and therefore, the delay had occurred. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ''A'' SMC Bench, at Chennai, [in short ''the ITAT''] vide common order dated 19.11.2018, had dismissed all the four appeals on the ground that the above cited reasons cannot be termed as justifiable. The appellant/assessee, challenging the legality of the said common order, had filed the present Tax Case Appeals and in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeals, the appellant/assessee had raised the following common substantial questions of law: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal had erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant dismissing the condone delay petition

and

the

appeal

in ITA.Nos.1923/Chny/2018 ; 1924/Chny/2018 ; 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 1925/Chny/2018 and 1926/Chny/2018 for the Assessment Years 1998-99 dated 19.11.2018 filed by the Appellant against the without application of mind and ignoring the document available on record? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant when the merits of the same has not been tested in any of the Appellate Forums below and the same has been dismissed only on technical ground? (3)The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee would submit that even without ordering notice to the appellant/assessee prior to condonation of delay in filing the four appeals, the appeals came to be rejected in limini and in the absence of any imposition as to the stand taken by the appellant/assessee, the reasons cited for condonation of delay remain uncontroverted and in any event, the ITAT ought to have condoned the delay and taken up the appeals on file and given a disposal on merits. (4)Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue would submit that no tenable material, whatsoever, has been produced by the appellant/assessee in support of the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals and as such, the ITAT has rightly exercised its discretion 4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 and dismissed the appeals for want of proper explanation and prays for dismissal of these Tax Case Appeals. (5)This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. (6)A perusal of the impugned common order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the ITAT would disclose that no notice has been ordered to the Revenue and the appeals have been filed in pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court to the appellant/assessee while granting liberty to the assessee to withdraw WP.No.7862/2019. The appellant/assessee is a home-maker and in the considered opinion of the Court, she had cited personal reasons and difficulties as to the delay in approaching the ITAT and in the absence of notice to the respondent/Revenue, the reasons for the delay remain uncontroverted. This Court is also of the view that the appellant/assessee has properly explained the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT. (7)In the result, the substantial questions of law are answered in affirmative and in favour of the appellant/assessee. (8)The Tax Case Appeals are allowed and the common order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the ITAT in ITA.Nos.1923/Chny/2018 ; 1924/Chny/2018 ; 1925/Chny/2018 ; and 1926/Chny/2018 are set aside. 5/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 Consequently, the delay of 374 days in filing the appeals in the above ITA cases, is hereby condoned. (9)If the papers are otherwise in order, the ITAT is directed to number the appeals and give a disposal as expeditiously as possible. [M.S.N.,J] [A.Q., J] 09.03.2020 AP Internet : Yes To The Income Tax Officer Ward-I[1], Thanjavur.

6/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J., AP TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 09.03.2020 7/7 http://www.judis.nic.in