Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ 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)-5, Chennai, both dated 24.08.2017 in ITA No.215/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 & ITA No.216/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 144 & 147 of the Act.
2 ITA Nos. 2671 & 2672/Chny/2017
2.1 Assessment year 2012-13:
The assessee has raised the following grounds in his
appeal for the assessment year 2012-13:-
A. The order of the Appellate Authority is arbitrary and incompatible in law.
B. The Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated the reasons adduced in the affidavit for condonation of delay.
c. The Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the appellant was an Individual and did not have any exposure of the appeal proceedings under the IT Act, 1961.
D. The appellant is exposed to these types of demands made by the Income Tax authorities for the first time and therefore, is not familiar with the appeal remedies.
E. The appellant states the Appellate Authority instead of appreciating the innocence of the appellant in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, restored to technicalities in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Income Tax search created panic among the family members resulting into difference of opinion developed among the appellant and his wife. This has ultimately affected the health of the appellant resulting into mental imbalance. At times, the appellant was not stable and underwent medical treatment with Psychiatrist and also for nervous disorder. The appellant did not mention the above facts before the Appellate Authority out of introvertedness.
F. The appellant submit for the above reasons only, appellant were not in a position to respond to the notices issued by the AO.
G. The appellant pray that if he is given an opportunity to submit the records by this Hon'ble Tribunal, he would do so within the time frame prescribed by the Tribunal and submit the same before the AO.
H. The appellant pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may please consider the case of the appellant in a sympathetic way and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority by granting one more opportunity to submit the
3 ITA Nos. 2671 & 2672/Chny/2017 documents before the AO. As the immovable property is under the attachment of the Department, the interest of the revenue is also protected and no prejudice would be caused to the Department if the appellant is given an opportunity to produce the documents before the AO.
I. The appellant reserve their right to raise additional grounds during the time of appeal hearing.
In view of the above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. ITA 215/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 dated 24.08.2017 and permit the appellant to produce the documents before the AO and thus render justice.”
2.2 Assessment year 2013-14:
The assessee has raised the following grounds in his
appeal for the assessment year 2013-14:-
A. The order of the Appellate Authority is arbitrary and incompatible in law.
B. The Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated the reasons adduced in the affidavit for condonation of delay.
c. The appellate authority has failed to appreciate the delay of seven days or nine days in filing the appeal is a meager delay which any Judicial Forum would condone it.
D. The appellate authority has passed the similar order for the assessment year 2013-14 adopting the very same reasons in Appeal No. ITA 216/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 dated 24.08.2017. The appellate authority has simply followed the order passed for the assessment year 2013-14 for this year also mechanically without considering the actual period of delay.
E. The Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the appellant was an individual and did not have any exposure of the appeal proceedings under the IT Act, 1961.
F. The appellant is exposed to these type of demands made by the Income Tax authorities for the first time and therefore, is not familiar with the appeal remedies.
4 ITA Nos. 2671 & 2672/Chny/2017
G. The appellant states the Appellate Authority instead of appreciating the innocence of the appellant in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, restored to technicalities in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Income Tax search created panic among the family members resulting into difference of opinion developed among the appellant and his wife. This has ultimately affected the health of the appellant resulting into mental imbalance. At times, the appellant was not stable and underwent medical treatment with Psychiatrist and also for nervous disorder. The appellant did not mention the above facts before the Appellate Authority out of introvertedness.
H. The appellant submit for the above reasons only, appellant were not in a position to respond to the notices issued by the AO.
I. The appellant pray that if he is given an opportunity to submit the records by this Hon'ble Tribunal, he would do so within the time frame prescribed by the Tribunal and submit the same before the AO.
J. The appellant pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may please consider the case of the appellant in a sympathetic way and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority by granting one more opportunity to submit the documents before the AO. As the immovable property is under the attachment of the Department, the interest of the revenue is also protected and no prejudice would be caused to the Department if the appellant is given an opportunity to produce the documents before the AO by set aside the order of the Appellate Authority.
In view of the above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. ITA 216/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 dated 24.08.2017 and permit the appellant to produce the documents before the AO and thus render justice.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an
individual carrying on business in the name of M/s. Shri
Harichandra Agencies as wholesale dealer in edible provisions
items, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13
on 03.10.2012 admitting total income of Rs.43,39,712/-. Further
5 ITA Nos. 2671 & 2672/Chny/2017 the assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment
year 2013-14 on 16.12.2016 admitting a loss of Rs.1,83,311/-.
Thereafter a revised return of income was filed by the assessee on
18.12.2016 admitting loss of Rs.4,96,11,710/- wherein the amount
of Rs.4,94,28,399/- pertains to the claim of bad debts. In between a
survey U/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s
business premises on 13.11.2013. In the scrutiny assessment
proceedings since there was no proper response from the
assessee, assessment order was passed by the Ld.AO U/s.144
r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on
28.03.2016 and for the assessment 2013-14 on 28.12.2016.
Thereafter the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) for
both the assessment years. For the assessment year 2012-13, the
Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee ought to have filed the
appeal on or before 23.05.2016, however the appeal was filed on
12.09.2016. Similarly for the assessment year 2013-14, it was
observed by the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee should have filed the
appeal on or before 07.03.2017, however the appeal was filed on
15.03.2017. Since the assessee had not explained the reasons for
the delay in filing the appeals for both the assessment years, the
6 ITA Nos. 2671 & 2672/Chny/2017 Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee by not condoning
the delayl.
Before us the assessee submitted that he was undergoing
psychiatric and nervous disorder treatment due to which the delay had occurred. He therefore pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided so that he can present the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)
as the he has a fair chance to succeed in the appeal. The Ld.DR strongly objected to the submission of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. The assessee has satisfactorily explained before us the reason for the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) which was due to his serious medical
condition. Therefore considering the plight of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) requires to be condoned. Accordingly we hereby
condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) for both the assessment years and hereby remit both the appeals back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for hearing the appeals on
merits. At the same time, we also caution the assessee to promptly
7 ITA Nos. 2671 & 2672/Chny/2017 co-operate before the Ld.CIT(A) in his proceedings in order to expedite his Order failing which the Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate Order based on the materials on record.
In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced on the 09th April, 2018 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (N.R.S. Ganesan) (A. Mohan Alankamony) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated 09th April, 2018 RSR 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