Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an original return of income, and the AO reopened the case under Section 147 towards investment in land and building and cash deposit. The AO treated these as unexplained under Sections 69 and 69A of the Act and added to the total income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the condition of payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming additions made by the AO, and if the assessee's non-appearance before CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond control, warranting a remand.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 143(2), 69, 115BBE, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2018-19 Krishnasamy Sathyanathan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ramprasad, No. 174, Anna Salai, Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Chengalpattu 603 001. Tambaram, Chennai. [PAN:AEMPR9403C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 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 26.11.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.
The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. We note that the assessee filed original return of income admitting net taxable income at ₹.6,98,850/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the case for assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] towards investment in land and building in M/s. Nanmayam Health Center amounting to ₹.62,97,618/- and cash deposit of ₹.40,000/-. Against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 30.04.2022. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. Despite various notices issued including show-cause notice & letter, the details and documents called for in respect of the investment in land and building and cash deposit remained unexplained and hence, the Assessing Officer treated the investment in land and building of M/s. Nanmayam Health Centre at ₹.62,97,618/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and cash deposit of ₹.40,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, rental income admitted at ₹.9,68,000/- which has not been reflected in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act is brought to tax under the head income from house property. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution since there was no response to various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate submits that non appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control. He also submits that the notices sent through email were completely missed out as the assessee is not conversant with the e-proceedings and electronic devises. He further submits that even before the ld. CIT(A), in the condonation petition against the delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has submitted that due to his ill health/not knowing the procedure of appeal filing etc., prayed for condonation of delay, which was duly considered by the ld. CIT(A). He prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue his case before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 4(a) of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. He vehemently argued that costs may be imposed in case this Tribunal afford an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the condition of payment of ₹.5,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the Assessing Officer shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/documentary evidence 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 28th February, 2025 at Chennai.