Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in dated 12.07.2017 for assessment year 2014- 15.
The assessee filed a petition to condone the delay of 171 days in filing the appeal. The AR submitted that the assessee was suffering from great stress due to the business loss and receipt of huge demand orders from the department. Due to the stress, he has misplaced the order, due to which he was under the bonafide belief that the appeal has already been filed by office. When the Revenue authority started coercive steps for recovery, he came to understand the position and immediately took steps to file the appeal. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton and in the interests of justice, it was pleaded that the delay may be condone.
We heard the rival submissions, on the above pleas and in the interests of justice, we condone the delay.
The AR submitted that Shri. Palvakka Mohammed Hussain Rasheed Khan, the assessee, a proprietor of MSR Enterprises, was doing export of garment business for the past several years. Since, he did not have adequate orders for the year 2013-14, he had approached one agent to do the business using his export license and the bank account so that he can get some earning from that agent.
While making the assessment, the AO asked to establish the :-3-: genuineness of the sundry creditors towards which he could not furnish any particulars at that time. Hence, the AO made an addition.
Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
The AR submitted that the turnover of the appellant is 2.25 crores and it is beyond business possibilities to generate an income of 1.85 crores on a total turnover of 2.25 crores . The Ld. CIT(A) failed to see that there is equal sundry debtors as much as sundry creditors.
Since, the assessee has collected the required particulars etc and it is before the assessee, he pleaded that on affording one more opportunity, he can explain the sundry creditors satisfactorily. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed such plea based on the orders of the lower authorities.
We heard the rival submissions. On the facts and circumstances submitted by the Ld. AR, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the AO for a fresh examination.
The AO is at full liberty to examine the claim and decide the issues in accordance with law. To this extent, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2018 at Chennai.