Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
Year: 2014-15 Venkatachalam Ganesan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ravichandran, 693/1A, Ravichandran Ward 2(4), Cotton Company, Dharapuram Road, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 608. [PAN: ADNPR9905P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15 challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A).
We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 163 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons.
Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 163 days is condoned.
The assessee filed his return of income and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016, inter alia, the Assessing Officer made addition of undisclosed income on account of the purchases claimed to be made since the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction from the creditor. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in the absence of any written submissions/supporting evidence filed by the assessee.
The ld. AR Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate submits that due to the circumstances beyond his control, the assessee could not file written submissions in support of the grounds raised before the ld. CIT(A). He submits that the assessee is ready to submit written submissions to substantiate his claim and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. She vehemently argued that the costs may be imposed in case this Tribunal afford an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) subject to the condition of payment of ₹.2,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th November, 2024 at Chennai.