RAJASEKAR RAM MANOHAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3456/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 April 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case, and an adequate opportunity of hearing was to be granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, citing mixed-up papers. The ITAT condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a speaking order and without adjudicating the grounds. Whether the claim for deduction of interest under Section 24(b) and the alternate plea for assessment under 'other sources' were correctly considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(b),Section 57(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

आयकरअपीलसं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Rajasekar Ram Manohar ACIT बनाम/ No.7, Canal Bank Road, Non Corporate Circle-1(1), Katuribai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai – 600 020. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAKPM-0682-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12-04-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 29.08.2019 in the matter of assessment framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2016. The assessee has filed revised Form No.36. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under:

2 -

1. 1. The order of the learned Commissioner Of Income (Appeals)-2, is wrong, illegal and is opposed to law.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appellants appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant to prosecute his case. The said order is against provision of law principles of natural justice.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law is dismissing the appellants appeal for non-prosecution and without a speaking order and without adjudicating the various grounds raised by the appellant.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in not allowing the claim made by the appellant under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act.

5. The leaned CIT(A) erred in not considering the alternate plea of the appellant that income from ground rent is assessable under the head other sources and consequently the interest claimed by the appellant is allowable under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The Registry has noted a delay of 21 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of affidavit of the assessee wherein it has been submitted that the appeal papers got mixed up and could not traced until 16.12.2019. Accordingly, there was a delay of 21 days in the appeal. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay, however, keeping in view the period of delay and contents of the affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

In assessment order dated 23.03.2016, the deduction of interest of Rs.20.92 Lacs as claimed by the assessee u/s 24(b) was disallowed. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, none appeared for assessee and consequently, the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Considering the above factual matrix, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18thApril, 2022.

More judgments on Section 24(b)

All 545 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →