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.790/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Mr. Jaganathan Anandan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 76, 10, Kannaiah Street, Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AFZPA9672C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. R. Sridevi, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Suresh, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the exparte order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.
We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the affidavit, upon hearing
2 I.T.A. No.790/Chny/24
both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay of 23 days is condoned.
At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer found cash deposits in the accounts of the assessee during demonetization period. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that no compliance were made by the assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Having no compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act and inter alia making addition on account of unexplained money and unexplained cash credits and determined the income of the assessee at ₹.22,84,918/-. Having aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but, however, non-submissions of evidence in support of his claim, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
Before us, the ld. AR Ms. R. Sridevi, Advocate prayed to afford an opportunity to the assessee as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case without fail. Further, she submits that the assessee is ready with all documentary evidences in support of his claim and requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. As discussed above, there
3 I.T.A. No.790/Chny/24
was no compliance before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) with relevant documentary evidences. Taking into account and undertaking as advanced by the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee that the assessee is ready to prosecute the case without fail, we deem it proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, before the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2024 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 22.05.2024 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.