MAHESH JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE2(1, CHENNAI

Mahesh Jain DCIT, No.55, Narayana Mudali Street, Vs. Corp Circle-2(1) Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai-34 [PAN-AAFPJ3370D) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Darpan Kumar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal arises from order vide DIN / order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059358921(1) dated 04.01.2024 of the CIT(Appeal)/NFAC whereby the appeal of the assesse was dismissed on account of non-prosecution of appeal by the assesse.

2.0 At the outset the Ld.AR argued that there existed genuine and sufficient grounds with the assesse which contributed to making proper representation and submission before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.0 The appellant is an individual and has been assessed to tax under PAN AAFPJ3370-D The appellant had filed his return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30/09/2012 admitting a Total Income of Rs.13,70,940- The said return was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the income had escaped assessment based on the information received from the DDIT(Inv) Unit3(3). Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. After hearing the Authorized Representative of the appellant, the learned Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment and by his order dated 21-12-2019 made an addition Rs.1,20,92,706/- being notional Interest Income @11% an advances given by the appellant. The assesse filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal on account of noncompliance. 4.0 The Ld.AR submitted that the matter be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and that the assesse assures that full compliance shall be made during appellate proceedings.

5.0 The Ld. DR contested the submissions of the assessee arguing that the assesse did not have a justifiable reason for non-compliance and accordingly relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 6.0 It is seen from records that there is delay of 7 days in filing of this appeal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. The assesse has submitted through an affidavit that the delay of 7 days has accord as is authorized representative was annual an account of pre- occupation and being indisposed. 7.0 It has been submitted that the said delay was neither willful nor wanton. Evidences brought on record allude that there is sufficient force in the assessee’s arguments. The delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned and the appeal is being adjudicated as under. 8.0 At the outset the assesse submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal on account of non-compliance to his notices. The assesse requested that the matter be restored to Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and assured that it shall make all compliances to the notices issued by the Appellate Authority.

9.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of facts of the case and material available on records. On perusal of the order it is seen that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non- compliance and proceeded to confirm the additions made by the AO.