ARUMUGAM SELVAKUMARAN,PUDUCHERRY V. ITO, WARD-3, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 2390/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Arumugam Selvakumaran, an individual engaged in the business of silver jewels and articles under the name ASK Jewellery, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The appeals were initially dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to the assessee's non-participation despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions and documents might not have been considered by the CIT(A) and decided to remit the case back for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29923 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M. MURALI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 250; 68; 40A(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ के, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2390 & 2391/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Arumugam Selvakumaran, 236 P R Complex, Kosakadai Street, Pondicherry – 605 001. [PAN: BFXPS-9896-F] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Puducherry – 605 003. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : None ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. M. Murali, CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, dated 26.06.2024 and pertains to assessment years 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 18 days in appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2390/Chny/2024 and 17 days delay appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. :-2-: ITA. Nos: 2390 & 2391/Chny/2024 2391/Chny/2024, for which petition for condonation of delay has not been filed. In the interests of justice, and considering the short period of delay, we condone delay in filing of both the appeals and admit appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying on the business of silver jewels and articles in the name of ASK Jewellery. The appellant filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 and 2017-18 on 30.09.2015 and 31.08.2017, by declaring an income of Rs.9,94,440/- and Rs.54,64,500/- respectively. A survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was carried out in the premises of the assessee on 16.02.2018 and thereon the case was reopened for assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and issued statutory notices accordingly. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 by making an addition of Rs.51,36,287/- u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. For the assessment year 2017-18 the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 25.12.2019 by making addition cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs.1,61,00,000/-, disallowance of chit at Rs.26,39,550/- and addition u/s. 40A(3) of the Act at :-3-: ITA. Nos: 2390 & 2391/Chny/2024 Rs.3,17,05,339/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. However, the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings inspite of giving many opportunities by the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The assessee has stated in his grounds of appeal the he has submitted a complete supporting documents in response to the notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act. However, the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the same and hence, prayed for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and sought for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to prosecute before the ld.CIT(A). 6. Per contra, the ld.DR did not object for the same. 7. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the ld.DR. Since, the submissions made by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) has not been considered while passing an order by the ld.CIT(A) and stated as assessee has not responded to the notices issued, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit remit :-4-: ITA. Nos: 2390 & 2391/Chny/2024 the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 22nd November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 22nd November, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT – Chennai 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "