ARIYAPILLAI VENKATAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , NON CORP CIRCLE 4(1)`, CHENNAI

Ariyapillai Venkatakrishnan The Asst. Commissioner of Plot No.55, Door No.3/6, Vs. Income Tax, Non-Corp III Street, Annai Sathya Nagar, Circle-4(1), Ramapuram, Chennai-89. Chennai. [PAN-AMJPV9628E) (अपीलार्थी/Assesse ) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Kathir, Advocate 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/250/2023-24/1058284585(1) dated 28.11.2024 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 Brief facts of the case are that the assesse is an individual and he filed his return of income for the relevant A.Y.2017-18 on 30.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.17,61,240/-. The return was processed and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was issued asking the assesse to file the return and complete details and documents. In response to the notices, the assesse submitted the details. The assesse had made cash deposit of Rs.20,25,000/- during the demonetization period. In his response filed dated 01.03.2019, the assesse stated that he sold two pieces of land in December, 2016 and the proceeds were deposited in banks. On perusal of registered sale deeds, it was found that the assesse sold two deeds for a consideration of Rs.7,20,000/- and of Rs.14.40,000/-, respectively. In a statement recorded by the AO under oath u/s 131 of the Act, the assesse stated that that he entered into an agreement with Sri Muthubalakrishnan to sell these lands. However, the assesse failed to produce any registered agreement between him and Sri Muthubalakrishnan before the AO. Hence, the AO, in the absence of any documentary evidence and without any satisfactory explanation, the amount of Rs.20.25.000/- was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added back to the total income of the assesse. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assesses 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 51 days in filing of this appeal. The assesse has submitted through an affidavit that it is a retired Pensioner who is not well-versed in the digital nuances and Email etc. He says there was an unintended non-compliance on my part of the notices issued by Ld.CIT(A) and that the said 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. 7.0 On perusal of the order Ld.CIT(A) it is seen that he had dismissed assessee’s appeal on account of non-compliance to his notices. 8.0 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. Facts of the case indicates that the assesse was prevented