Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH
ITA Nos.2349 to 2355 /CHNY/2017, to 1236/CHNY/2018 & to 1242/CHNY/2018 are the appeals filed by the different Assesses, against the separate common orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA No.438,439,326,440,441,327,328/14-15, dated 12.04.2017 for assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08,ITA Nos.423,424 & 422/14-15, dated 20.12.2017 for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & ITA Nos.432 to 437/14-15, dated 20.12.2017 for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08.
As the issues in all these appeals are inter-connected and identical, all appeals are disposed off by this common order.
Mr.K.Subramaniam, C.A & Mr.R.S.Balaji, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.M.Sreenivas Rao, C.I.T D.R represented on behalf of the Revenue.
Shri N.Maria Robin :- 3 -: Smt.N.Arockiam Smt.Esther Jayarani 4. It was submitted by ld.A.R that two main issues are involved in all these appeals being one is non-allowance of bad debts and second is non-disallowance of expenditures relating to development of the lay-out and sales of the plots. It was a submission that search and seizure operation was conducted on one Shri S.Ponnaiyan on 28.03.2007. As consequence of the search on Shri S.Ponnaiyan, a search u/s.132 of the Act was conducted on 03.04.2007 in the premises of assessee. Notice u/s.153C dated 24.10.2008 was issued on the assessee. The return for assessment year 2001-02 was filed and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2008 within a period of barely two months and one week from the date of issue of notice u/s.153C of the Act. It was a submission that assessee had not been granted adequate opportunity to produce all the details in the course of assessment. It was a submission that against the assessment order, the assessee had filed appeals to the Ld.CIT(A). The appeals admittedly were delayed on account of illness of assessee’s counsel Shri K.Subramainam, Chartered Accountant, who is nearly 77 years old. It was a submission that the delay in filing of the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) had not been condoned and Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee on limitation and also did not consider the evidences produced before him, when adjudicating the issues on merits. It was the prayer that the delay in filling of all these appeals
Shri N.Maria Robin :- 4 -: Smt.N.Arockiam Smt.Esther Jayarani may be condoned and the assessee had no objection, if the issues were restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.
In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that notice u/s.153C has been issued on the assessees only on 24.10.2008 and the return has been filed by the assessees on 02.12.2008. The assessment has been completed on 30.12.2008 within one month. It is noticed that there is no recording of the evidences found in the course of search to have been provided to the assessee. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that though the return has been filed on 02.12.2008, questionnaire has been issued on 01.12.2008. Further, a perusal of the order of Ld.CIT(A) shows that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on limitation. It is also noticed that Ld.CIT(A) has gone into merits, but has not given any adjudication on merits also. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the Authorized Representative of assessee, most specifically, Mr.K.Subramaniam,C.A shows that he was bedridden for five months and could not attend to routine works property. This affidavit filed by the Chartered
Shri N.Maria Robin :- 5 -: Smt.N.Arockiam Smt.Esther Jayarani Accountant, has not been shown to be false. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the delay caused in filing of the appeals on account of the illness of the Authorized Representative of assessee, is liable to be condoned and cannot be a reason to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. This being so, the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) stands condoned. Perusal of the assessment order as also the order of the CIT(Appeals) shows that all facts have not been examined or verified by the lower authorities. This being so, we are of the view that all the issues in these appeals of assessee must be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and we do so. Under these circumstances, the issues are restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case.
6.1 The findings of assessment year 2001-02 applies to this issues raised in the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005- 06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 as directed in supra.
Since the issues and the relevant facts involved in remaining appeals in the case of Smt.N.Arockiam for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and in the case of Smt.Esther Jayarani for assessment years2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are identical, therefore, the decision reached by us in the Shri N.Maria Robin :- 6 -: Smt.N.Arockiam Smt.Esther Jayarani appeal No.2349/CHNY/2017 for assessment year 2001-02, shall equally apply to the remaining appeals of the assessee also.
Accordingly, all the appeals of the two assessees i.e. Smt.N.Arockiam & Smt.Esther Jayarani deserve to be partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals of the three assessees mentioned in the title are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 28TH June, 2018, at Chennai.