CHENNIAPPAN VENKATESWARAN,KANGEYAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 3101/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals filed by Chenniappan Venkateswaran, the proprietor of M/s. Anna Cell Com, against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the AO's ex-parte order estimating the assessee's income at 50% of the gross commission received from M/s. Aircel Limited for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2017-18. The assessee, a non-filer engaged in the business of distributing and selling mobile recharge vouchers and sim cards, did not participate in the initial assessment proceedings due to health issues, leading to an ex-parte assessment under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found the estimate of income by the AO to be unreasonable and remitted the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36921 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M. SATHISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 5 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज क े, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 3080, 3081, 3101 & 3103/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Prop. M/s. Anna Cell Com, 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Kangeyam – 638 701. [PAN: ADHPV-7648-F] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Tirupur. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CA प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 03.07.2024 and pertains to assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. These appeals are heard together and for the sake of convenience we are adjudicating all these appeals together by passing a common order as below. ITA. Nos: 3080, 3801, 3101 & 3103 3112/Chny/2024 2. The only ground raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the ex-parte order of the AO in estimating the addition of 50% as income of the gross commission received for all the four AYs i.e. 2014-15 to 2017-18. 3. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 65 days in all the four appeals filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed for the all the AYs i.e. 2014-15 to 2017-18 separately. After considering the petitions filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that the assessee was suffering from injury in right ankle and could not move and hence there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of these appeals and admit appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a non filer and carrying on the business of distribution and sale of mobile recharge vouchers and sim cards under the trade name M/s.Anna Cell Com. The assessee was in receipt of commission income and based on the information the case was reopened for ITA. Nos: 3080, 3801, 3101 & 3103 3112/Chny/2024 assessment and issued statutory notices. However, assessee neither filed his return of income nor responded to the notices of the AO. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act by estimating the income @ 50% of the gross commission received from M/s.Aircel Limited as detailed below:- Asst. Year Date of Order u/s.144 Commission 50% Estimated 2014-15 30.03.2022 Rs.45,95,432/- Rs.22,97,716/- 2015-16 30.03.2022 Rs.41,48,968/- Rs.20,74,484/- 2016-17 30.03.2022 Rs.49,23,428/- Rs.24,61,714/- 2017-18 30.03.2022 Rs.39,75,462/- Rs.19,87,731/- Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 5. After considering submission made by the assessee the ld. CIT(A) passed a common order dated 03.07.2024 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us for all the four assessment years. 6. The ld.AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO without considering any of the submissions made by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AR stated that the AO has passed an order without participation of the assessee in the assessment ITA. Nos: 3080, 3801, 3101 & 3103 3112/Chny/2024 proceedings by estimating unreasonable percentage of income at 50% of the gross commission received M/s.Aircel Limited. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee had furnished earlier four assessment years i.e 2010-11 to 2013-14 return of income wherein the net income earned from the commission received was from 8% to 16.4%. However, the Ld.CIT(A) without considering assessee’s claim confirmed the order of AO. In light of the above arguments, the Ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity before the AO to furnish all the required details and documents in support of the assessment for all the four AYs. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records and perused the orders of lower authorities. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings before the AO and hence the AO has passed an ex-parte orders which were confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the four AYs. On perusal of records, it is noted that the AO has made unreasonable estimate of income at 50% of gross commission received by the assessee. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to remit the file back to the AO for de novo assessment to give one more opportunity to the assessee before the AO to present his case. Needless to say that the assessee to cooperate and submit ITA. Nos: 3080, 3801, 3101 & 3103 3112/Chny/2024 the required details and documents for all the four AYs as and when called for without taking unnecessary adjournments. 9. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 11th, March, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनांक/Dated, the 11th , March, 2025 kb आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT 4. तिभागीय प्रतितनति/DR 5. गार्ज फाईल/GF "