SHRI GANGADHARAN PALANI RAGHURAMAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCW -15(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 456/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 March 2022AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper examination of the evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days, which was condoned. The primary issue was the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the assessee's written submissions and documentary evidence regarding unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee by the CIT(A) and if the assessee's submissions were properly considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND Dr. M.L. MEENA

Hearing: 09.03.2022Pronounced: 10.03.2022

आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai in dated 13.12.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 15(3), Chennai for the assessment year 2013-14

2 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide order dated 29.12.2018.

2.

At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 3 days and the assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating that the appeal against the order of CIT(A) dated 13.12.2019 was to be filed on or before 21.02.2020 but actually filed on 24.02.2020 with a delay of 3 days. It is stated that the delay was due to his auditors pre-occupied with income tax matters and as soon as they resumed to physical work gave the order and other papers to advocates for preparing the appeal and the appeal has been prepared and filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee stated that the delay is neither willful nor wanton. When this was confronted to ld. Senior DR, he has not objected for condonation of delay. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is that the CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity and for this, assessee has raised following three grounds:-

1. 1. Sufficient opportunity not afforded.

2. The case was heard on 29-11-2019 and the appellant was given time till 06-12-2019 to file the written submissions. The appellant filed the written submission on 06-12-2019 which was not considered by the CIT(appeals).

3. The appellant had properly explained the nature of business, furnished the p&l account, balance sheet, cash book, on 06-12-2019 duly

3 acknowledged. These were never considered by the CIT(appeals) in his order dated 13-12-2019.

4.

The ld.counsel for the assessee Shri S. Sridhar stated that only issue under dispute is unexplained cash credit i.e., deposits made in the assessee’s bank account amounting to Rs.27,70,500/-. The AO added these cash deposits of Rs.27,70,500/- as unexplained cash credits under the head ‘income from other sources’. The CIT(A) decided the issue on merits but noted that the assessee neither before AO nor before CIT(A) filed documentary evidence and dismissed the assessee’s appeal without considering the explanation filed by assessee vide letter dated 06.12.2019. The ld.counsel stated that the assessee has filed complete details in the written submissions along with explanation vide letter dated 06.12.2019, whereas the CIT(A) passed the order dismissing the appeal of assessee on 13.12.2019. He referred to the letter dated 06.12.2019. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he fairly conceded that the appeal can be restored back to the file of the CIT(A). In counter reply, the ld.counsel for the assessee only made request that no purpose will be served by setting aside the issue to the file of CIT(A) but requested that the matter may be restored to the file of AO and for that he stated the reason that the assessee has to file reconciliation of bank statement viz-a-viz deposits made on various dates amounting to Rs.27,70,500/-. The ld. Senior DR also agreed to the same.

4 5. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts narrated by both the sides and going through the case records, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has not considered the submissions filed by assessee vide letter dated 06.12.2019, as the CIT(A)’s order is dated 13.12.2019. Hence, in view of the plea raised by assessee’s counsel that matter be restored back to the file of AO for the reason that entire evidences i.e., reconciliation and deposits made by way of cash in assessee’s bank account needs examination, we find the plea of assessee’s counsel as reasonable and hence, restore the matter back to the file of AO. The orders of lower authorities are set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the court on 10th March, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →