SHRI. J DURAIRAJ, TUTICORIN V. ITO WARD 1 (1), TUTICORIN

ITA 1734/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5141 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI , ! , ! % BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1734/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI J.DURAIRAJ, PROP. THANGAM FINANCE, NO.28A, CHETTI PILLAIMAR STREET, ERAL, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. [PAN: AIUPD 7674 F] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TUTICORIN. ( ' /APPELLANT) ( ()' /RESPONDENT) ' * / APPELLANT BY : MRS.S.VIDYA (APPEARED WITHOUT VAKALATNAMA) ()' * /RESPONDENT BY : MR.AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT * /DATE OF HEARING : 04.02.2019 * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.02.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.1734/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-1, MADURAI, IN ITA NO.0050/2011-12 DATED 20.03.2018 FOR THE AY 2008-09 . 2. MRS. S.VIDYA, LD.COUNSEL, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR. AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE. ITA NO.1734/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL, MRS.S.VIDYA, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DOING MONEY LENDING BUSINES S. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE ON 03.02.2009. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE COMPLETED U/S.144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ON 30.11.2010. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BEFORE HIM ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED. IT WAS A SU BMISSION THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AS THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO EX PLAIN VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE WAS A SURVEY IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES, AND NOTICES HAD BEEN ISSUED U/ S.142(1), NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT AY. THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO COOPERATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED THE RET URN NOR PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR FILED ANY DETAILS CALLED FOR. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT( A) WAS DELAYED BY 268 DAYS, FOR WHICH ALSO, PROPER REASONS HAD NOT BEEN G IVEN AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAD SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE REASONS GIVEN A RE VERY GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT MERIT ANY CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA NO.5 OF HIS ORDER AND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO COOPERATION ON TH E PART OF THE ITA NO.1734/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A) AND THE THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. AT THE OUTSET, WHEN THE LD.COUNSEL, MRS.S.VIDYA, WAS ASKED REGARDING HER VAKALATNAMA TO REPRESENT THE APPEAL, SHE WAS UNABLE TO FILE ANY AUTHORIZATION. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS T HAT ON AN EARLIER OCCASION, SHE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT, AND ON THE BASIS OF HER PETITION, ADJOURNMENT WAS ALSO GRANTED. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THOUGH A SURVEY HAS TAKEN PLACE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING NOR PROVIDED ANY DETAILS CALLED FOR, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME ALSO. EVEN BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO REPRESENTATION NOR PRODUCTION OF ANY DETAILS. NOW THE ASSESSEE WANTS THE ISSUES TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION. THIS IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING 2008-09, TH E ASSESSEE HAS METICULOUSLY WAITED TILL THE TIME FOR RE-OPENING, W HERE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING CREDITORS HAS EXPIRED. SO ALSO, THE POSSI BILITY FOR RE-OPENING FOR THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SHORT, BY NOT COOPERATING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEFOR E THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY MANAGED TO DELAY THE PROC EEDINGS TO THE EXTENT THE EARLIER YEARS ASSESSMENT BEING TIME BARRED. T HIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF ITA NO.1734/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL CANNOT BE R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR GIVING ANOTHER CHANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. ALSO IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING OF T HE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. THIS HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DISMISSAL OF THE ASSESSEES APPEA L ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEA L HAS ATTAINED ITS FINALITY. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HERE IS NO ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH CALLS FOR ANY INTER FERENCE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 4 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. TLN * (23 43 /COPY TO: 1. ' /APPELLANT 4. 5 /CIT 2. ()' /RESPONDENT 5. 3 ( /DR 3. 5 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF