Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ �यायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी महावीर �सह, उपा�य� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 527/CHNY/2024 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Kandasamy Prabhakaran, The Income Tax Officer, 267/615 Bazzar Street, Vs. Ward-1(6), Ranipet, Attur, Salem. Salem – 636 102. PAN: AZKPP 0847P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman,CA ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01.07.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054555995 (1) dated 24.07.2023. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 26.11.2019.
- 2 - ITA No.527/CHNY/2024 2. It is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 160 days. The facts of the case are that the order by CIT(A)-NFAC is dated 24.07.2023. As per Form 36, the assessee has received this order on 24.07.2023 and appeal should have been filed on or before 22.09.2023 but appeal was actually filed on 29.02.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 160 days. The assessee filed condonation petition along with affidavit for condoning the delay of 160 days stating the following reason:- “The above delay occurred due to the following reasons A) I have studies only upto 9th Standard and I was doing business in milk products as an agent for Hatsun Agro Product Limited, V. Kootroad, Aattu Pannai, Periyeri-post, Attur Taluk, Salem – 636112. B) Due to lack of education and for want of proper professional guidance the income tax assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 was completed u/s 144 of the Act. C) Further I was also suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis (An autoimmune inflammatory disease that affects the joints) D) For filing the appeal I took the services of CA T.S. Lakshmivenkataraman, Salem. The distance between Attur to Salem is 50 Kms and this factor also contributed in the delay in filing the appeal.”
2.1 When this was confronted to ld.Senior-DR, he could not controvert the above facts. After hearing rival contentions and going through the condonation petition, we find the reason stated by assessee as reasonable and sufficient and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
- 3 - ITA No.527/CHNY/2024 3. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.7, which reads as under:- “7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in passing a cryptic order without discussing about the various case laws submitted before him in respect of business receipts which could not be brought within the ambit of section 69A r.w.s.115BBE.”
The ld.AR took us through the CIT(A)-NFAC’s order, wherein the assessee filed submissions during the course of hearing and which are reproduced in para 4 at pages 3 to 6, wherein various submissions were made but in the adjudication at page 7, para 6, none was considered by the CIT(A)-NFAC. The ld.AR stated that the CIT(A)-NFAC is duty bound to pass a speaking order of each of the submissions made before him but not to pass a cryptic order as he did. Hence, he only requested for one more opportunity. The ld.Senior DR could not controvert the above fact situation.
After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the assessee, we noted that the order of CIT(A)-NFAC is non- speaking and even the submissions although reproduced in the order of CIT(A)-NFAC from pages 3 to 6 running into four pages, has not at all considered. Without speaking anything on merits on the issue of assessment of cash deposit of Rs.18,13,400/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by the AO and confirmed by
- 4 - ITA No.527/CHNY/2024 the CIT(A)-NFAC, we set aside the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 1st July, 2024 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर �सह ) (मनोज कुमार अ�वाल) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 1st July, 2024 RSR आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु� /CIT, Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.