ZEENATH BEGUM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-6(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 888/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2022AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unable to explain the source of investment before the revenue authorities and that further adjudication was required. With the consent of the Departmental Representative, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased flats and accepted 50% of the investment. A loan was taken for a portion of the investment, but a significant amount of Rs. 28,35,000 remained unexplained. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) upheld the addition of this unexplained amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided sufficient explanation for the source of investment in the property. Whether the matter should be remanded for further adjudication due to lack of proper explanation before lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 07.06.2022Pronounced: 15.06.2022

आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM:

1.

The instant appeal was filed by Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals)

– 5, Chennai (in brevity “the CIT(A)”), bearing order No. ITA No – 63/CIT (A) – 5/2018 – 19, order dated 23.12.2019, u/s.250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The said order was generated from the order of the Ld. Income

::2 :: Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-6(1)/ Chennai u/s.143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, order dated 07–12-2018.

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal of the Assessee is time barred by 255 days due to the outbreak of ‘Covid-19’ pandemic. The Hon’ble Bench took into cognizance the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the “Suo Moto WP 03/2020 dated 20.03.2020 while considering the condonation of delay. It is a fact that ‘Covid-19’ pandemic was prevalent and in term of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, we condone the delay of 255 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

The brief fact is that the assessee and her husband purchased two flats for a total value of Rs.1,41,70,000/–.

During assessment proceeding the Assessee accepted 50% of investment in her own behalf, which is amounting to Rs.70,85,000/–. For explanation of source of investment, the Assessee jointly with her husband took a loan for Rs.85,00.000/– from Gruh Finance. The assessee was able

::3 :: to explain the source of investment only for an amount of R.42,50,000/– for the investment in the property out of loan. The balance amount Rs. 28,35,000/- (Rs. 70,85,000/- minus Rs. 42,50,000/-) was remained unexplained before the ld. Assessing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer finally added back the un-explained source of investment of Rs.28,35,000/- with the total income of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). But the learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed before us.

4.

During the proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], no one was present on behalf of Assessee. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that during the appeal before the learned CIT(A) also, no one was present from the end of Assessee.

The learned CIT(A)passed the order exparte. The Assessee was unable to redress her grievance before the Appellate Authority.

5.

The Assessee filed her submission with the paper book dated 17.10.2020 before the Bench which is being kept on record. The Assessee in the submission explained that the Assessee was a seller of Biriyani. The Assessee’s husband was running a shop under the name and style of M/s Nayeem Trading Corporation. As per the explanation, the balance amount was invested from surplus of business.

Also the confirmation from Sunday creditors, an amount of Rs.12.65 Lakhs is annexed with the submission. The evidences which are enclosed along with the paper book were showing the clear intention of the Assessee to explain the balance investment before the adjudicating authority.

6.

The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the assessee has taken number of adjournments before the ld. CIT(A) during the appeal proceeding. The appellate authority allowed the adjournments six times.

Finally, an exparte order was passed.

7.

We considered the documents available in the records. The Assessee was unable to explain her submission before the revenue authorities. Further adjudication is ::5 :: required for explanation of balance source of investment.

With the consent of the learned Departmental Representative the matter is being set aside before the learned CIT(A) for further consideration of the same issue.

The Assessee is directed to produce all relevant documents before the learned CIT(A) for further adjudication. Also, the reasonable opportunity should be allowed to the Assessee for the redressal of her grievance.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A No.:888/Chny/2020 is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →