B.KUNDANMAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 490/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 November 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's medical condition. It found merit in the assessee's argument that the matter required reconsideration at the Assessing Officer's level.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 522 days late due to medical reasons and misplacing the order. The appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 4,50,000 as interest income from M/s. Rathna Stores, which the assessee denied.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's medical condition and whether the addition of interest income was rightly made without proper verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ (SMC

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

Hearing: 08.11.2021Pronounced: 08.11.2021

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 490/CHNY/2020 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri B. Kundanmal, The Income Tax Officer, No.44/40, Ekambareshwar v. Non-Corporate Ward -5(1), Agraharam Street, Chennai -34. Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. PAN : AAKPK 1373N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Anand, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. Sajive, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 08.11.2021 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, in vide order dated 29.06.2018. The Assessment was framed by ITO, Non Corporate Ward- 5(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2015-16 vide order dated 28.12.2017 U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 522 days. The ld. counsel for the assessee before me contended that the order of CIT(A) was served on the assessee on 29.07.2018 and limitation expires for filing of appeal before Tribunal on 29.09.2018. The appeal was filed before Tribunal on 02.03.2020. The assessee contended that condonation petition along with affidavit stating the reason was filed and he took me through the reasons stated in the affidavit and the relevant reason reads as under:- “1. The delay in filing the appeal is due to misplacing of assessment order till recovery notice was served upon me.

2.

Medical treatment and bed ridden status as explained below also contributed to not approaching the new auditor on time; a) I was further advised to be under medical observation for my heart ailments and blood pressure treatment during the three years. b) I was further diagnosed with eye ailment where my eyesight and could not move outside to contact auditor. c) Due to continuous strain and medical treatments I was suffering from arthritis and had to undergo a rehabilitation and physiotherapy to get back to normal self and seek treatment tooth priority.”

3.

When these reasons were confronted to ld. senior Department Representative, he could not controvert the above reasons.

4.

After hearing both the sides and going through the reasons that the assessee was bed ridden and medical treatment was given during this period and he was suffering from other ailments also. Hence, I feel that there is a reasonable cause for condoning the delay and accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3 5. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in making addition being interest received by assessee from M/s. Rathna Stores [firm], Purasawalkam amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-. For this, the assessee has raised following two effective grounds:- “2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.450,000 allegedly being interest received by the appellant from Rathna Stores (Firm), Pursawalkam.

3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in adding the amount of Rs.450,000 solely on the ground that Rathna Stores had not responded to her query as to is the nature of payment.

6.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that first of all the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and moreover the assessee had no such transaction with M/s. Rathna Stores and also no claim in TDS relating to this interest of Rs.4,50,000/- in the return of income filed by the assessee. Moreover, the ld. counsel stated that the AO has also not confronted M/s. Rathna Stores (firm), Purasawalkam, even though notice u/s.133(6) of the Act was issued. In such circumstances, the ld. counsel stated that for clarity of facts, the matter needs reconsideration. When these facts were confronted to ld. senior Department Representative, he stated that matter can be restored back to the file of the CIT(A). But, ld. counsel stated that the matter can go back to AO because he could carry out the investigation in respect of M/s. Rathna Stores (firm), Pursawalkam,

4 Chennai by calling information and confronting the same to the assessee.

7.

After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, I find reason in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that matter needs reconsideration at the level of AO. Hence, I set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th November, 2021 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →