Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 647 days, which was condoned due to Covid-19 related reasons. The assessee had filed the original return admitting income, but the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee failed to produce evidence before the CIT(A), who upheld the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file relevant evidence before the AO for de novo adjudication, after which the AO can proceed with the assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to file evidence after the lower authorities have already decided the case, and if so, on what conditions.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-/NFAC, (in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Chennai/Delhi, dated 26.05.2023 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The registry has noted delay of ‘647’ days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated (Covid-19 infection, (AY 2017-18) Mr. Rajarathinam Sadayappan Diabetes & hypertension) in the condonation petition which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Rajarathinam Sadayappan, working in Madras Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Chennai filed Original Return of income (RoI) for the AY 2017-18 on 18.07.2017 electronically, admitting total income of Rs.4,07,050/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposit during demonetization period and difference in salary income less than the salary income as per 26AS. However, before the ld.CIT(A), assessee did appear and assessee was not able to produce evidence, hence the ld.CIT(A) proceeded on merits and dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of AO. Hence, assessee is further in appeal before us.
Before us also, the ld. Counsel submitted that while adjudicating the matter the ld. CIT(A) or AO has not given the proper opportunity to file the evidences filed before the AO/CIT(A). He further pleaded that for one more opportunity to file the evidence before the CIT(A) or AO. The Ld. Addl. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not filed supporting evidences with regard to the addition before the ld. CIT(A).
(AY 2017-18) Mr. Rajarathinam Sadayappan 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submission addressed by the ld. Departmental Representative. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.AO to file all relevant evidences/documents to prosecute his case. Even no evidence and no explanation were filed before the AO. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.AO for de novo adjudication. The Ld.AO who shall proceed for de novo assessment after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on the 21st day of July, 2025, in Chennai.