Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 7 days, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 17,10,000/- on account of the sale of immovable property which was not disclosed by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was given an opportunity to present fresh evidence and submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence for the undisclosed immovable property sale, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Year: 2017-18 Natarajan Murugan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 14/14/4 K.T.C. Nagar, Melur, Ward 1(2), Tuticorin S.O. Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. [PAN:AOGPM4428L] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Thulasiram, Avocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 7 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.
Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
We note that no representation whatsoever made before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), which is clear from para 2 of the assessment order and para 6.1.a. of the impugned order.
The ld. AR Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to bring on record evidences in support of his claim before the Assessing officer.
The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT did report any objection.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the assessment order, we note that as per information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold immovable property for a consideration of ₹.17,10,000/-, but, however, the assessee has not disclosed the same in the return of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 16.05.2023, inter alia, making addition of ₹.17,10,000/-. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We find the assistance of assessee is necessary in terms of addition made by the Assessing Officer. We have also noted the contention of the ld. AR that the assessee is living in remote village in Thoothukudi district and not well versed in the income tax law and online browsing, being illiterate and prayed for an opportunity. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th September, 2025 at Chennai.