ABDUL RASHEED MOHAMMED RAFI,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Chennai, dated 20.03.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has also moved a Stay Petition for stay of outstanding demand. We heard both the appeal and the stay petition together and disposing of the same by this common order.

There is a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed an application to condone the delay. Shri M.V. Swaroop, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is a resident of Thailand and he visits India occasionally. The order passed by the CIT(Appeals) was not communicated to the assessee and the assessee came to know the order of the first Appellate Authority when he visited India in October, 2014 and immediately, he filed an appeal before this Tribunal.

On the contrary, Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the order was communicated to the assessee through his representative, therefore, there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a resident of Thailand and he visits India occasionally. When the assessee visits India occasionally and he being a resident of Thailand, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal before this Tribunal within the specified time. Accordingly, the delay of 183 days is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted.

Now coming to the merit of the case, Shri M.V. Swaroop, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the only addition made by the Assessing Officer is with regard to cash deposit in the ICICI Bank to the extent of `33,67,861/-. The Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the assessee’s mother made the deposit in the assessee’s account.

On the contrary, Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee’s claim before the lower authorities was that the assessee’s mother deposited the money in the assessee’s account out of the sale proceeds of the land and the agricultural income. The Assessing Officer found that the deposit of `33,67,861/- was made in the assessee’s account on six times. The assessee’s mother was power of attorney agent for five persons who are residents of Bangkok, Thailand. As per the sale deed produced before the lower authorities, the sale consideration received was only `37,68,000/-, out of which the share of the assessee’s mother was `5,68,000/-. According to the Ld. D.R., it cannot be said that the assessee’s mother deposited `33,00,000/-. According to the Ld. D.R., it is assessee’s money which was deposited in the bank, the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition. Referring to the agricultural income, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee’s claim before the lower authorities was that the assessee’s mother was cultivating 30 acres of land. The Village Administrative Officer, however, has certified that the assessee’s mother owned only 20 acres of wet land. The proceedings of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer says that the assessee owns only 16.59 acres of land. In view of this contrary statements, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly disbelieved the claim of the assessee and the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. A copy of the proceedings of Agricultural Income Tax Officer, which is available at page 9 of the paper-book shows that the assessee’s mother owned 21.95 ordinary acres of land which is equivalent to 18.81 standard acres. The bank statement of Shri Sultan Sickenthar, the brother of the assessee, was available at page 40 of the paper-book. By referring to entry made on 14.08.2008, the Ld.counsel for the assessee claims that a sum of `31,00,000/- was withdrawn on two occasions. This copy of the bank statement was not available before the lower authorities. The first Appellate Authority, after referring to the proceedings of Agricultural Income Tax Officer, has found that the land holding was 16.59 acres. But, the copy of the proceedings available at page 9 shows that the land holding was 21.95 ordinary acres which is equivalent to 18.81 standard acres.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition is dismissed.