BANGARU JAYARAMAN,DHARMAPURI V. ITO, WARD-1, DHARMAPURI

ITA 2538/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

This case involves appeals by Smt. Jayaraman Sagunthala and Shri Bangaru Jayaraman against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were initially ex-parte. The assessees were accused of not filing their income tax returns for the assessment year 2012-13 despite having substantial cash deposits in their joint bank account. The Assessing Officer had made best judgment assessments under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to their non-appearance and non-response to notices. The Tribunal noted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the assessees' ability to respond to these notices and decided to give them another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107155 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KEERTHI NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u000eा यपीठ, चे\u0013ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0016ी एबी टी. वक\u001a, \u000eा ियक सद\u001d एवं \u0016ी अिमता भ शु$ा , लेखा सद\u001d क े सम& BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2537/CHNY/2024 िनधा (रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Jayaraman Sagunthala, 2/100, Mathimarathupatti Village, Maravadi PO, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri – 635 205. [PAN: DVBPS 7622K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dharmapuri. (अपीला थ\u001a/Appellant) (+,थ\u001a/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2538/CHNY/2024 िनधा (रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri. Bangaru Jayaraman, 2/100, Mathimarathupatti Village, Maravadi PO, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri – 635 205. [PAN: ASLPJ 8776H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dharmapuri. अपीला थ\u001a की ओर से/ Appellants by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate +,थ\u001a की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT सुनवा ईकीता रीख/Date of Hearing : 23.12.2024 घोषणा कीता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals filed by the respective assessees against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, ITA Nos.2537 & 2538/Chny/2024 (AY 2012-13) Jayaraman Sagunthala & Bangaru Jayaraman :: 2 :: (hereinafter in short “CIT(A)\") dated 27.06.2024 & 17.05.2024 respectively for assessment year 2012-13 (hereinafter in short “AY\"). 2. At the outset, we note that these appeals were filed with a delay of 35 days & 76 days respectively. On perusal of the applications filed for condonation of delay supported by affidavits and submissions of the Ld. AR and Ld. DR, we find the reasons explained by the assessees are reasonable and shows sufficient cause which prevented them in filing the appeals in time. Thus, the delay of 35 days in filing ITA No.2537/CHNY/2024 and 76 days in filing ITA No.2538/CHNY/2024 are condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has passed ex-parte orders qua both the assessees. And that the AO has also passed best judgment assessments u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after “Act”] i.e., ex-parte orders. 4. Brief facts are that the AO received AIR (Annual Information Report) information that there were cash deposits amounting to Rs.20,01,000/- in their savings bank account with M/s. Canara Bank. The AO also noted that ITA Nos.2537 & 2538/Chny/2024 (AY 2012-13) Jayaraman Sagunthala & Bangaru Jayaraman :: 3 :: both the assessees had not filed their return of income for the relevant AY (AY 2012-13). The AO in order to ascertain the sources of the cash deposits made in the aforesaid bank account issued notices u/s.148 of the Act to both the parties on 28.03.2019 and thereafter notices u/s.142(1) of the Act were issued on 08.03.2021 & 13.09.2021 and followed by a show- cause dated 24.09.2021; and since, the assessees neither appeared nor filed any reply, the AO passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.20,01,000/- u/s.69A of the Act in both their hands by passing separate assessment orders on 29.09.2021. 5. Aggrieved, the assessees preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeals citing the reason that despite giving notices and fixing the appeal on eight occasions, none appeared/filed written submissions before him. Therefore, he dismissed the appeals ex-parte qua both assesses. Aggrieved by the impugned actions of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, both the assessees are before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is noted that the assessee’s are husband & wife (Husband: Shri Bangaru Jayaraman and Wife: Smt.Jayaraman Sagunthala) and both were having a ITA Nos.2537 & 2538/Chny/2024 (AY 2012-13) Jayaraman Sagunthala & Bangaru Jayaraman :: 4 :: joint account in the Canara Bank. In the said bank account, the first name was of the husband and second name was that of the wife. According to the husband, his total income for the AY 2012-13 was Rs.1,79,510/-, which was below the taxable limit and therefore, he was not required to file the return of income. According to the wife, she didn’t have any income from any source during the relevant year under consideration and therefore, didn’t file any return of income. According to the husband, he is engaged in the business of providing building materials / stones and the cash deposits was out of such business transaction. In other words, the cash deposit in question were receipts from the trading of stones as well as sale of agricultural land of 2.16 acres at Rs.1,08,000/-. According to Ld.AR, the notice u/s.148 and notices u/s.142(1) of the Act were all issued during the Covid/Pandemic period and therefore, the assessees could not respond to the notices issued by the AO. 7. We note that the AO had issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 08.03.2021 and 13.09.2021 as well as the show cause notice (SCN) dated 24.09.2021 which were issued during the Covid period. Therefore benefit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, suo-motto order excusing / extending limitation period (from 20.03.2020 to 28.03.2022 and was even extended to 90 days) ITA Nos.2537 & 2538/Chny/2024 (AY 2012-13) Jayaraman Sagunthala & Bangaru Jayaraman :: 5 :: should be given to assessee’s and therefore, we are of the view that the assessees non-compliance to the notices issued by the AO u/s.142(1) of the Act and SCN dated 24.09.2021 needs to be excused; and having noted so, we are of the view that as per the scheme of Income Tax Act, the AO is the primary authority who is vested with the power to examine the facts as well as law to determine the correct taxable income of the tax payer. Since the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the AO has passed ex-parte order qua assessee, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee before the AO for proving the nature and source of cash deposit in the joint account of the husband & wife in the Canara Bank account to the tune of Rs.20,01,000/-. For such a decision, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and restore the assessments de novo before AO. Since the bank account in question is held in the name of husband as the first holder of the account, the assessment needs to be framed in the hands of the husband and it is trite law that the same amount cannot be again taxed in the hands of the wife. With the aforesaid observation, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessments back to the file of the AO to de novo assess the income of the assessee i.e., with regard to the nature and ITA Nos.2537 & 2538/Chny/2024 (AY 2012-13) Jayaraman Sagunthala & Bangaru Jayaraman :: 6 :: source of the cash deposit to the tune of Rs.20,01,000/-. The assessees are directed to file written submissions as well as file the relevant evidences to prove the nature of source of Rs.20,01,000/- and the AO is directed to frame assessment in accordance to law and considering that assessee’s are husband & wife and holds joint account, if one of the assessee’s proves the nature and source of the deposit, no addition in the hands of other should be again made. 8. In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05th February, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक\u0012) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\u0003ई/Chennai, \u0005दनांक/Dated: 05th February, 2025. RSR आदेश की +ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीला थ\u001a/Appellant, 2.+,थ\u001a/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु1/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभा गीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गा ड( फा ईल/GF. "