Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ‘‘सी” �यायपीठ, चे�नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी अ�ाहम पी. जॉज�, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी धु�वु� आर.एल रे�डी, �या�यक सद�य के सम� Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2844/Mds/2017 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2013-14 & S.P. No. 316/Mds/2017[In.T.A.No.2844/Mds/2017] M/s. Shree Ganesh Ventures, The Income Tax Officer, No. 14-A, Ennor High Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 6(2) Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019. Chennai 600 006. [PAN: AAOFS0487K] (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of hearing : 01.12.2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.12.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai dated 17.08.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Besides challenging confirmation of disallowance of expenses at ₹.11,85,878/-, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has specially raised a ground that 2 & S.P. No. 316/Mds/17 without giving sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order and prayed for one more opportunity by the ld. CIT(A). Further, against the quantum addition, the assessee has also filed Stay Petition to grant stay of recovery of outstanding tax.
This appeal of the assessee is time barred by 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition in support of affidavit requesting to condone the delay. By referring to the contents therein, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the petitioner’s partner Shri Raghav Kumar Saraf is looking after the proceedings and since his father Shri Ashok Saraf was periodically ill and needed care and attention, he was not even aware of the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 17.08.2017 and came to know only on 20.10.2017. Thus, the ld. Counsel has submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton and prayed to condone the delay. We have gone through affidavit filed by the assessee and of the opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The ld. DR could not seriously object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing.
3 & S.P. No. 316/Mds/17 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel products and filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 admitting total income of ₹.13,01,110/-. The return filed by the assessee was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 03.09.2014 was served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed all the details and documents as called for. After verification of details and considering the submissions of the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.24,86,878/- after making disallowance of expenses of ₹.11,85,878/-.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since there was no representation from assessee’s side, after considering the materials available on record, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that one of the partners of the assessee firm Shri Raghav Kumar Saraf is looking after the income tax matters and since his father Shri Ashok Saraf was periodically ill and 4 & S.P. No. 316/Mds/17 needed care and attention, he was unable to concentrate or attend to the appellate proceedings to present the assessee’s case before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee may kindly be given to present its case. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below.
We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order by considering the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance during the course of appellate proceedings. Under the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the ground afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. S.P. No. 316/Mds/2017[in
Since the appeal against the quantum addition has been set aside and remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 15th December, 2017 at Chennai.