Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, dated 20.02.2017 in for the assessment year 2012-13 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 21.02.2017 in ITA No.100/CIT(A)-7/2015-16 for the assessment year 2012-13 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 154 of the Act.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeals:-
ITA 695 of 2017:- 1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai dated 20.02.2017 in 1.T.A.No.96/CIT(A)-7/2015-16 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not admitting the appeal filed before him and consequently erred in dismissing the appeal in limini as time barred by limitation without assigning proper reasons and justification.
3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reasons for belated filing of the appeal were wrongly rejected and ought to have appreciated that the rejection of such reasons as not sufficient for admitting the appeal was wholly unjustified.
4. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and ought to have appreciated that the findings recorded in para 10 of theimpugned order to support the non admission of the appeal were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.
5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.
6. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.
ITA 735 of 2017:-
1. 1.
1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai dated 21.02.2017 in I.T.A.No.100/CIT(A)-7/2015-16 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the rectification order dated 7.12.2015 on the presumption of the arithmetical mistake corrected in the said rectification order without assigning proper reasons and justification.
3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having accepted the narrow scope of the rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, the sustenance of the rectification order was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the rectification order dated 7.12.2015 on the presumption of the arithmetical mistake corrected in the said rectification order without assigning proper reasons and justification.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having accepted the narrow scope of the rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, the sustenance of the rectification order was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the regular assessment proceedings had not reached finality and ought to have appreciated that the rectification resulting in enhancement of assessed income on the pretext of correcting the arithmetical mistake was wholly unjustified.
5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 5 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification.
The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.
7. The Appellant carves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.
ITA 695 of 2017:-
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer and manufacturer of gold jewellery and ornaments, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 electronically on 12.09.2012 admitting total income of Rs.11,65,68,035/-. The case issued. Finally assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 12.03.2015 wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.13,59,900/- towards undisclosed income of the assessee. Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 200 days. The assessee had pleaded before the Ld.CIT(A) that the delay had occurred due to the wrong advice given by the professionals and pleaded for condonation of delay. However the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee rejecting the petition for condonation for delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.
4. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had fully believed on the wrong advice given by the professionals and therefore failed to prefer an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) within the stipulated period. He further submitted that the assessee has a fair chance to succeed in the appeal. He further pleaded stating that the assessee initially did not want to indulge in prolonged litigation and preferred to pay the tax with respect to the additions made by the Ld.A.O. But the subsequent events leading to invoking the 5 & 735/Chny/2017 penal proceedings of Section 271C of the Act, the assessee did not have any alternative but to argue the case on merits, however the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limini by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. He therefore requested that an opportunity may be given to the assessee in order to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR vehemently opposed to the submission of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. On considering the plea of the Ld.AR we are of the considered view that the assessee should be provided with an opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A) on merits. Therefore in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him and thereafter pass appropriate order based on merits and law.
ITA 735 of 2017:- 6. Since the appeal of the assessee in of 2017 is against Order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 154 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13, which will have bearing on 6 & 735/Chny/2017 the order passed U/s.250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 this appeal is remitted back to the file of Ld.AO in order to pass appropriate Order based on the Order by the Ld.CIT(A) U/s.250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal herein above.
In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced on the 21st May, 2018 at Chennai.