Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एसएस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जगदीश, लेखा सद� के सम� । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mrs. Malini Ramakrishnan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 46, Rukmani Salai, Kalakshetra Colony, Income Tax, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai. [PAN: ACHPR3778B] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Suresh, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 01.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 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 01.03.2024 passed by the Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Vadodara for the assessment year 2011-12.
The ld. AR, Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate drew our attention to ground No. 8 and requested to adjudicate the ground as an effective ground. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 12.04.2021 with a delay of eight years
2 I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/24
as against the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 11.03.2013 for the assessment year 2011-12. She submits that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. She drew our attention to the statement of facts forming part of Form 35 and submits that the intimation dated 11.03.2013 under sect9ion 143(1) of the Act was not served on the assessee till date. She submits that the business loss, deductions under section 80C and under section 80G of the Act are debatable issues, could be considered in scrutiny proceedings, but not under intimation proceedings. She vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have examined the issues on merits against the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act in the first appellate proceeding, but without examining the same, he simply dismissed the appeal in limine. She submits that the assessee, by inadvertent mistake made entry in Col. 1c of Form 35 as date of receipt of order on 10.04.2013 on the impression that the said column is for mentioning the time of filing the appeal i.e., within 30 days. She further drew our attention to Col. 14 to show that the assessee was in bonafide impression in making the entry in Col. 1c as 10.04.2013. She prayed to allow ground No. 8 and direct
3 I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/24
the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits by condoning the delay of eight years.
The ld. DR Shri G. Suresh, JCIT vehemently opposed the submissions of the ld. AR and argued that no valid reason was given for abnormal delay of eight years in filing the appeal.
Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the reasons explained by the assessee to condone the delay of 8 years in para 5. The ld. CIT(A) reproduced the petition for condonation of delay at page 6 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee has stated that no intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was received from the CPC Bangalore. But, nothing was brought on record to show that what steps the assessee has taken to find out whether the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act was issued or not from Assessing Officer’s record. On perusal of ground raised by the assessee in Form 35, we find that no ground as such raised before the ld. CIT(A) about non-receipt of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and the ld. AR submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have acted upon the statement made by the assessee in the
4 I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/24
statement of fact regarding the non service of intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act, in the absence of specific ground. The ld. AR vehemently contended that the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same. We find no force in the arguments of the ld. AR, in our opinion, had there been a ground which could have enabled the ld. CIT(A) to call for assessment record for verification to find out whether the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act was served or not, in the absence of which, the ld. CIT(A) is not bound to go into the issue to find out whether the intimation was served or not. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in exparte of the assessee.
Further, we note about the contention of the assessee that non consideration of business loss, deductions under sections 80C and 80G of the Act and non-allowance of TDS credit by the CPC, Bangalore, but, no information whatsoever was brought on record about the consideration by the Assessing Officer in respect of the said issues in subsequent assessment years. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the ld. AR & DR, ground No. 8 as raised by the assessee is dismissed. In view of dismissal of ground No. 8, all other ground 1 to 7 and 9 to 14 become
5 I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/24
infructuous and requires no adjudication. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 03rd July, 2024 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 03.07.2024 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.