RAJASEKARAN RADHAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

There was a delay of 320 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee filed affidavit in this regard. The assessee in the affidavit submitted that the Chartered Accountant, who was handling the assessee's case has left the job and did not handover the papers relating to income tax matters to the assessee. The assessee further submitted that he & 1420/Chny/2025 Rajasekaran Radhakrishnan :- 3 -: was not aware of the proceedings pending or the receipt of appellate orders. The assessee also submitted that only when the demand notice was received, the assessee became aware of the orders being passed by the CIT(A) and the assessee appointed a different counsel to regularize the income tax disputes. The assessee accordingly prayed that the delay/s in the filing the appeals is not wilful and only due to the bonafide reasons. The Ld. DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay/s as prayed by the Ld. AR. The ld. DR argued that the assessee should have known the pendency of the appellate proceedings and should have followed up on the appellate orders.

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/s in filing the appeals 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/s of 320 days in filing both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication.

On merits, we have heard the parties and perused the materials available record. From the perusal of the assessment order, we notice that the A.O has disallowed the developmental expenses for the reason that the assessee did not submit any explanation. The Ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted that the assessee before the CIT(A) has furnished details pertaining to development expenditure which has not been considered. On perusal of the order of CIT(A), we notice that the CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance on the ground that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the claim. Therefore there is merit in the submission that the lower authorities have not examined the impugned issue & 1420/Chny/2025 Rajasekaran Radhakrishnan :- 4 -: on merits. The Ld. AR at the time of hearing made a plea that if one more opportunity is given then the assessee would file all the necessary details in support of the developmental expenses. The Ld. DR did not object to the said request. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar of assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play. Accordingly we remit the issue back to the A.O with a direction to examine on merits by calling for relevant details for the purpose of deciding allowability in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. for A.Y 2020-21 6 The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y 2020-21 on 30.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.89,36,040/-. The A.O was of the view that the assessee did not include the additional income to the tune of Rs. 91,16,300/- offered during the course of survey as the business income while filing the return of income. Accordingly, the A.O added the said amount as the business income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the additional income offered during the course of survey is already included in the return of income filed by the assessee for A.Y 2020-21. The assessee submitted the relevant details in this regard before the CIT(A). However, after perusing the details furnished by the assessee, the CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had offered a sum of Rs. 86,52,000/- as "interest from others" and the CIT(A) did not accept the submissions that the said amount is the amount offered during the course of search. The CIT(A) therefore dismissed the appeal sustaining the addition made by the A.O. The various grounds raised by the assessee pertain & 1420/Chny/2025 Rajasekaran Radhakrishnan :- 5 -: to the issue of addition made by the AO towards income offered during survey as business income of the assessee.

There is delay of 320 days in filing the current appeal also and the petition for condonation is filed by the assessee quoting the same reasons as in AY 2019-20. Since the facts are identical, our decision to condone the delay in AY 2019-20 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2020-21 also. Accordingly the delay for AY 2020-21 is also condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication.

We have heard the parties, and perused the materials available on record. The primary contention of the Ld. AR before us is that the impugned addition made by the A.O towards the income offered during the course of survey is already included as the income of the assessee while filing the return of income for A.Y 2020-21. In this regard, the ld. AR drew our attention to the computation of income where we notice that a sum of Rs. 84,36,000/- is offered as additional income during the course of search. We also notice that the assessee in the capital account prepared for the year ended 31.03.2020 has included the additional income offered under the survey. We further notice that the balance sheet of the assessee as at 31.03.2020 does not contain any assets that could earn interest income which the assessee has declared in the return of income (erroneously as claimed by the assessee). Accordingly, we see merit in the submission of the Ld. AR that disclosing the additional income offered during the course of survey under head "interests from others" is inadvertent error and the same if added would result in double addition in the hands of the assessee. In view of this discussion, we hold that the addition made by the A.O towards income offered during the course of survey is & 1420/Chny/2025 Rajasekaran Radhakrishnan :- 6 -: already included by the assessee while filing the return of income and therefore, the same deserves to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2019-20 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for A.Y 2020-21 is allowed.