SHRI.RAMANATHAN RETHINAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON-CORPORATE WARD 10(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 208/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 August 2022AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to a cost, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 949 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-appearance without considering the merits of the case, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 30.08.2022Pronounced: 30.08.2022

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 208/CHNY/2022 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ramanathan Rethinam, The Income Tax Officer, No.20, Kamaraj Street, vs. Non-Corporate Ward 10(5), Chakravarthi Nagar, Chennai. Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023. PAN: ADZPR 1984N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai in dated 18.06.2019. The assessment was framed by the ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 10(5), Chennai for the assessment year 2015-16 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 11.12.2017.

2.

At the outset it is noticed that this appeal filed by assessee is time barred by 949 days and assessee has filed condonation petition accompanying affidavit praying for condonation of delay. The assessee’s contention was that the order of CIT(A) dated 18.06.2019 was received by the assessee on 25.06.2019 and the last date for filing of appeal was 24.08.2019 but actually appeal was filed only on 30.03.2022 with a delay of 949 days. The assessee stated the reasons that during August, 2019, assessee was busy finalizing accounts for filing of return of income for assessment year 2019-20. While filing the return, the impugned assessment order and appellate order got mixed up with other papers and the same could not be traced. After that, Covid-19 started and the family members were affected by Covid-19. The orders could be traced only during March, 2022. Hence, appeal was actually filed on 30.03.2022 with a delay of 949 days and the delay in filing of appeal is neither willful nor wanton. When this was pointed out to ld. Senior DR, he opposed for the condonation of unusual delay.

2.1 After hearing rival contentions and going through the reasons stated, it seems that the reasons does not convince a normal man but delay of 949 days pertains mostly to Covid-19 period. The delay was actually from 24.08.2019 to 25.03.2022 that means the effective delay is only for 212 days. Seeing the number of days delay, we are inclined to condone the delay subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. In term of the above, the delay is condoned.

3.

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for non-appearance in violation of principles of natural justice and the CIT(A) dismissed simpliciter for non-appearance and no adjudication on merits. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the finding recorded by CIT(A) in para 6.3 & 6.4 as under: 6.3 The repeated non-appearance of the appellant indicates that he is not interested in pursuing the appeal. During the appellate proceedings no written submissions have been filed. 6.4 In the above circumstances, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for the AY.2015-16 is confirmed and the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant for the assessment year under consideration is dismissed.

4. It seems that the issue to be adjudicated is as regards to the addition u/s.69 of the Act of Rs.2,85,030/- being unexplained investment of purchases and addition of Rs.14,72,190/- being unexplained expenditure claimed on account of payment of customs duty. But, in any case, the facts are not at all discussed by the CIT(A) and hence, we are setting aside the order of CIT(A) because it is an order passed for non-prosecution. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →