PALANISAMY RAGUNATHAN,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRLCE 1,(1), SALEM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12.

We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of one day. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned.

The assessee raised 3 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A., prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer stating that the assessee is a senior citizen having not well acquainted with e-proceedings, no evidence could not be produced before the Assessing Officer. He submits that the assessee is ready now, to prosecute his case, if this Tribunal affords an opportunity in the interest of justice.

The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT opposed vehemently and submits that both the authorities below have given ample opportunities to the assessee, but, however, not utilized in contesting his case. She drew our attention to AO’s order, ld. CIT(A)’s order and argued that the ITAT, in the first round of litigation by accepting the submissions of the assessee, remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee failed to furnish any details in support of his claim.

As discussed above, we find that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) intimated the date of hearing to the assessee, but, however, the case could not be contested for the reason for technical glitches having not acquainted with e-proceedings. The assessee is required to furnish relevant evidences against the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is also noted that the ITAT, in the first round of litigation having found that the Department being accepted that the assessee is a partner in M/s. S.A. Poultry Farm, remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, but, however, the assessee could not comply with the notice for the reasons as discussed above. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the addition made, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- towards cost 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 produce the receipt before the Assessing Officer. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim and the Assessing Officer shall conduct the assessment proceedings de novo. Thus, 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 21st August, 2024 at Chennai.