R.GURUSAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai in ITA

The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was a delay of 549 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is an uneducated person and dependent on others for entire course of action relating to his appeal and tax matters. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the A.O. on the advice of his Counsel and he completely relied on his Counsel. However, the Ld. A.R. miserably failed to submit the case before the First Appellate Authority and hence, he lost the appeal. Meanwhile, he was suffering from Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR),Neovascular/rubeotic glaucoma for his right eye, etc. Since his previous counsel has not suggested the option of filing an appeal before the Tribunal, the impugned appeal was delayed. Further, he had to change his previous Counsel and search for a new Counsel which further caused the delay in filing of the impugned appeal. Hence, the Ld. A.R pleaded that in the interests of justice, this delay may be condoned and the appeal be decided on merits.

The assessee, Shri R.Gurusamy, an individual, proprietor of M/s.Karthik Constructions, is engaged in the business of construction of buildings. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is an illiterate and totally dependent upon Tax Consultant. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015, inter alia, made an addition of ₹43 lakhs towards unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. While the entire investment was made towards purchase of immovable property, which could be properly explained from the assessee’s books of accounts, which includes banks statement and HUF return. Therefore, the ld. A.R. pleaded that in the interests of justice, a due opportunity is given before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee shall explain the entire transaction, so that the learned CIT(A) can decide the matter on merits, thereby due justice could be rendered to the assessee.

Per contra, the Ld. D.R supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as canvassed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that this issue requires a fresh examination, in the interests of justice. Therefore, we deem it fit to remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A) for due decision on merits. The assessee shall place relevant materials in support of his contentions before the learned CIT(A) and shall comply with the requirements of the learned CIT(A) in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A) after affording effective opportunity to the assessee/A.O., as the case may be, decide the issue in accordance with law.

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