Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 31.10.2019 for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2013-14. ITA Nos.3352 & 3355/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: ITA No.3352/Chny/2019 for A.Y 2007-08:
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The appellant is an individual. The appellant has filed the return of income on 31.07.2007 for the A.Y 2007-08 disclosing total income of Rs.
10,32,080/-. There was no scrutiny proceedings against this return of income. Subsequently, based on information received from DDI (Inv.),
Unit-III(2), Chennai that the appellant had purchased land admeasuring 7
acres and 11 acres located at Hafeezpet Village, Serillingampally
Mandal, R.R. District, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs. 96,25,000/-
vide sale deed No. 24498/06 and in Survey No.56 for a value of Rs.
1,77,50,000/- registered vide sale deed No.24497/06 respectively on 02.12.2006. The total value paid for the above properties is Rs.
2,99,76,100/- including registration charges of Rs. 26,01,100/-. From the report it was further ascertained that major portion for the purchase of property of the amount was paid by way of cash and a deposit of Rs.
29,99,000/- and Rs. 19,00,000/- was made in assessee’s account by way
of cash and various cash payments have been made by the assessee to various persons on various dates for which the assessee had not furnished any proof for the source. These transactions were not revealed
to the department by the assessee in his return of income filed for the A.Y 2007-08 on 31.07.2007. ITA Nos.3352 & 3355/Chny/2019 :- 3 -:
Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 10.02.2015. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide letter dated 11.03.2015
stated that the original return of income filed be treated as return in response to notice of s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment
was completed by DCIT, Corporate Circlr-2(1), Chennai (hereinafter
called ‘AO’) by making addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- on account of inability
the assessee to explain the source for the following payments:
Date Amount Pymt By Bank 09/09/2006 10,00,000 Ch.No.494753 GKE, FB, Hyd 18/09/2006 10,00,000 Cash 18/09/2006 5,00,000 Ch. No.494756 GKE, FB, Hyd 07/12/2006 10,00,000 Ch. No.494767 GKE, FB, Hyd 30/04/2008 50,000 DD GKE, FB, Hyd
The AO also made addition on account of unexplained cash
deposits of Rs. 23,99,000/-
Being aggrieved by the above assessment, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 05 days in filing the appeal. Being
aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) , the appellant is in appeal before us
in the present appeal.
The ld. AR submitted before us that though we have filed petition
for condonation of delay was filed before Ld. CIT(A) praying condonation
of delay. It is contended before us that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the delay of 5 days had occurred on account of ill-health
ITA Nos.3352 & 3355/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: of the Managing Director of the appellant-company. On the other hand,
the Ld. Sr. DR opposed above submission.
We heard the rival submissions and perused material available on record. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was filed with delay of five days.
The appellant had filed petition praying for condonation of delay on account of ill-health of the Managing Director of the appellant-company.
In our considered opinion, it constitute reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of five
days in filing the appeal, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.
CIT(A) condoning the delay of five days with the direction to dispose the appeal on merits.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA
No.3352/Chny/2019 for A.Y 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical
purpose.
ITA No.3355/Chny/2019 for A.Y 2013-14:
The appellant is an individual. The appellant has filed the return of income on 23.11.2013 for the A.Y 2013-14 disclosing total income of Rs.
9,63,040/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai vide order dated
2016 at a total income of Rs. 56,47,710/-. While doing so, the AO
ITA Nos.3352 & 3355/Chny/2019 :- 5 -: has made an addition of Rs. 15,98,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in bank account and also made addition of sale proceeds of agricultural
land on the ground that it is not proved that the land that was sold was agricultural land. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,23,000/- on account of unexplained sources for credit card payment of Rs. 2,23,000/.
Being aggrieved by the above assessment, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A). The appeal was posted for hearing on 15.10.2019 vide hearing notice dated 01.10.2019 by Ld. CIT(A). Again,
the matter was adjourned on 21.10.2019 calling upon the appellant to furnish one full set copy of e-appeal filed and with the noting that it was a final opportunity and in the event of non compliance the appeal would be decided based on the documents available on record. On the next date
of hearing on 21.10.2019, no appearance was caused therefore, the Ld.
CIT(A) had proceeded to dismiss the appeal exparte for non rectification
of the defects such as for non-enclosing of notice of demand etc. Being
aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) , the appellant is in appeal before us
in the present appeal.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it is very clear that the Ld.
CIT(A) had not granted reasonable opportunity to comply with the defects notice therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter
should go back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in ITA Nos.3352 & 3355/Chny/2019 :- 6 -: accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity being heard to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3355/Chny/2019 for A.Y 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of March, 2020 in Chennai. (जॉज" माथन) (इंटूर" रामा राव) (GEORGE MATHAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 04th March, 2020. EDN, Sr. P.S
आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""यथ"/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु"त/CIT 5. "वभागीय ""त"न"ध/DR 6. गाड" फाईल/GF