SHREYANSH JAIN, CHENNAI V. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD - 9 (4), CHENNAI

ITA 1020/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shreyansh Jain against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai, which was initially dismissed for non-attendance. The original assessment for the year 2013-14 included a substantial long-term capital gain, leading to a significantly higher assessed income than declared. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-attendance, attributed to personal issues and health problems, including the impact of COVID-19. However, the tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal to be excessive and unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135005 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154; 143(3); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1020/CHNY/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year:2013-14 Shreyansh Jain, 121, Vaibhav Apartments, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. PAN: AFWPJ 3966P v. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 9(4), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : None ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.07.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai in ITA No.25/CIT(A)-10/2018-19 dated 22.11.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 9(4), Chennai for the assessment year 2013-14 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 30.03.2016. 2 ITA No.1020/Chny/2022 2. At the outset, when this appeal is called for hearing, none is present from assessee’s side, despite service of notice. It is noticed that this appeal came for hearing twice on earlier occasions but none was present. Even, the notices issued through RPAD were returned back with a remark “no such person”. It means that the assessee might have left the address and has not informed the Tribunal any new address. Hence we have no alternative except to decide the issue ex-parte qua assessee, on merits. 3. We noted that this appeal is barred by limitation by 1040 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating the reason as under:- 2. I had sold the property at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai on Velachery jointly with my husband on 22.05.2012, for a sale consideration of Rs.1.Crores. 3. I had E-filed the return of income on Assessment Year 2013-14 on 14-3- 20 declaring a total income of Rs.2,55,720/-. Subsequently the case was taken for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued. 4. The assessment was completed and order U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Ac 1961 was made on 31.03.2016 with assessed income of RS. 27,70,542/- which includes LTCG of Rs. 22,90,822/-. 5. Subsequently notice u/s. 154 was issued to the appellant on 18/06/2018 the Assessing Officer has not accepted the objection raised by the appellant the assessment was rectified u/s.154 assessing a total income of Rs.1,53,70,592/- and raised a demand of Rs. 55,26,350. 6. I had appealed against the order with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai on 06-08-2018. 3 ITA No.1020/Chny/2022 7. I was not able to attend the hearing and reply the hearing notices issued by the Commissioner of Appeals as the notices were not served to me personally and the notices have been served my E.Mail. 8. As my parents were critically ill, I was attending them and has failed to open the system and view the notices issued for compliance. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 10 have dismissed our appeal vide his order dated 22.11.2019 for not attending the hearing and concluded that we had no defence/ nothing at all to say. 10. All my family members were affected due to Covid-19 and coupled with other personal problems, I could not contact the tax consultants till November, 2022. 11. Thereafter, I took steps for filing an appeal against the order and contacted Shri.S.Sankaralingam, Commissioner of Income Tax (Retired), and Shri.A.K.Ramu, Income Tax Officer (Retired), Chennai for preparing the appeal which they sent us on the 25th of November 2022. 12. I had paid the Appeal Fee of Rs.10,000/- on 01 -12-2022. 13. I had signed the appeal papers and handed over to them on 02.12.2022 December 2022. The Appeal could be filed only on 02.12.2022 with a delay of 1041days. 14. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither wilful nor wanton. It is also submitted that the Appellant has a good case on merits and would be put to great loss and hardship if the delay is not condoned, particularly owing to the old age and the health condition of the Appellant. 4. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he vehemently objected and stated that no evidence was filed by assessee to support the assertion made in affidavit. The facts are that the order of CIT(A) was communicated to the assessee, as per Form 36 on 28.11.2019 and appeal was filed by assessee before Tribunal only on 02.12.2022. It means that there is a delay of 1040 days. This was much before the start of Covid-19 period. The spread of Covid-19 started from 15.03.2020 and assessee received 4 ITA No.1020/Chny/2022 the order of CIT(A) on 28.11.2019, that means the limitation expires on 28.01.2020. Even it is noted that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte, none was present from assessee’s side. It means that there is no evidence filed by assessee to support the condonation petition. As this is not a fit case for condonation of delay, we dismiss the appeal as un-admitted. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5 th July, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 5 th July, 2023 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.