MUTHIAH SHANMUGAM ,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD - 3, VELLORE

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058549082(1) dated 07.12.2023 of Ld.CIT(A). Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 07.12.2023 passed by Ld.CIT(A).

2.0 In this case, the AO had determined taxable income u/s 143(3) Rs.17,23,380/- against the returned income of Rs.6,65,880/- by making disallowances of Chapter-VIA deductions and interest on borrowed

ITA No.345/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:

capital. In this case in its original return the assesse had claimed deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 80C and Rs.3,509/- u/s.80G. Subsequently, the assesse revised its return of income and made claims of deduction under Chapter-VI A of Rs.8,59,500/- and interest on borrowed capital Rs.1,98,000/-. The assesse was requesting for release of refund on account of the revised return. However, upon receipt of notices during scrutiny proceedings, the assesse submitted that he is withdrawing the claim made in the revised return. The AO concluded that filing of revised return was apparently done with malafide intentions to defraud the Revenue and proceeded to add claimed deduction under Chapter-VI A of Rs.8,59,500/- and interest on borrowed capital Rs.1,98,000/- to the returned income. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that there was a delay of 141 days in the filing of the appeal. In response the assesse submitted that he was unwell and requested for condonation. Noting that the appellant did not file any supporting medical documents as well as a disparity in the actual period of delay, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assesse r.w.s 249(3) of the Act. While doing so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed “during the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to furnish written submissions to contract the findings of the AO. I have gone through the order of the

ITA No.345/Chny/2024 :- 3 -:

AO and noticed that para-6 of the AO as passed speaking order before initiating the proceedings u/s 270A of the Act…”.

3.0 Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the assesse has raised grounds of appeal no.1 to 7 which are all centering around the controversy of non-condonation of delay by the Ld.CIT(A) and confirmation of the impugned addition of Rs.10,57,500/-.

4.0 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assesse had genuine grounds for the delay in filing of appeals and that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same and adjudicated accordingly. The Ld.AR submitted that the matter may be considered for restoration to the Ld.CIT(A) for condonation of delay and adjudication. The Ld.DR argued that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is correct and does not require any interference.

5.0 We have heard rival submission in the light of facts of the case and material brought on records. It is an evident fact of the case that the assesse did not respond to query letters raised by the AO. The assesse cannot just make a claim and then try to withdraw it without any sufficient basis. The addition made by the AO is also not clear as it does not

ITA No.345/Chny/2024 :- 4 -:

categorically specifies as to which section of the Acts are being invoked to make the impugned additions. The AO has also not given any finding as to how the deductions claimed under various sections of Act like 80C, 80CCD(1B), 80CCD(2), 80D, 80DD, 80DDB, 80E, 80EEA, 80GG, 80GGC and interest on borrowed capital are ingenuine claims. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that there exists a deficiency in the period of delay and the request made for condonation. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that there is no finding on the merits of the addition. The appellant has also failed to provide any concrete written submissions to contradict the findings of the AO. Thus seen the order of the lower authorities suffers from deficiencies and deserve to be set aside. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assesse is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 the matter is restored to the file of the AO for assessment de novo. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO. To the extent the order of the lower authorities is set aside and the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 7 raised by the assesse are partly allowed.

ITA No.345/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: 6.0 In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (यस यस �व�वने� र�व) (�ी अ�मताभ शु�ला) (SS Viswanethra Ravi) (Amitabh Shukla) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 3rd July, 2024. KB/- आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/CIT - Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF