Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in & 47/CIT(A)-13/11-12 & 12-13 dated 30.03.2017 for assessment years 2011- 12 & 2012-13, respectively.
:- 2 -: & 2683/Chny/2017 2. The appeals are delayed by 152 days and hence the assessee filed condonation petition submitting, inter alia, that he is 60 years old, diabetic and heart patient with frequent health setbacks. Further, his father was admitted with signs of heart attack and he had to take care, his business was hard hit, he was facing huge financial impediments. Due to various difficulties & confusions, the delay occurred which was beyond his control.
The delay is neither wilful or wanton. Pleaded that in the interests of justice, the delay may be condoned.
We heard the rival contentions. On the facts and circumstances submitted by the assessee, supra, and in the interests of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeals for both assessment years.
The AR submitted that Shri. P. Sugumar, the assessee, manufacturing & selling bricks, transports sand, bricks and blue metal.
There was a survey in his business premises and the assessee was found not to have filed returns for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, respectively. The AO issued notices u/s.s 148, 142, 144 and completed the assessments for both assessment years u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 adding the entire credits in the bank accounts as the assessee’s income in both of the assessment years. Aggrieved against those orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals.
Against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed these appeals.
:- 3 -: & 2683/Chny/2017 5. The AR pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) without giving effective opportunity and considering the assessee’s alternate plea etc., on the orders passed by the exparte by the AO, disposed the appeals and hence pleaded to afford an opportunity for effective hearings. Per contra, the Ld. DR countered the submissions stating that the assessee did not co-operate during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) sought remand reports from the AO, furnished a copy to the assessee and after considering assessee’s reply disposed the appeals. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ao submitted remand report without due opportunity to the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) simply based his decisions on such reports and hence sought due justice.
We heard the rival submissions. The facts remain that the assessee did not file returns, on survey it was found that he is having multiple sources of income. Though his bank accounts show huge credits, the assessee merely filed returns estimating the income which was not accepted in the impugned assessments. Though, the assessee made various submissions, the facts and associated circumstances have not been explained and enquired into. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit both the assessments to the AO for a fresh, denovo, examination. The assessee shall lay relevant materials in support of its contention before the AO and comply with the requirements of the AO in accordance with law. The :- 4 -: & 2683/Chny/2017 AO is free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit, but he shall furnish adequate opportunity to the assesssee on the material etc to be used against it and decide the matters in accordance with law.
In the result, the assessee’s appeals in & 2683/Chny/2017 for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on Friday, the 02nd day of November, 2018 at Chennai.