S.Ponnambalam, Pattukkottai V. ITO, Thanjavur

ITA 1853/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8363 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1853/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) MR. S.PONNAMBALAM 3, SUNNAMBUKKARA STREET, PATTUKOTTAI. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(1) THANJAVUR. PAN: AEAPP5045A ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. K.RAVI, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 31 ST AUGUST,2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 TH OCTOBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI DATED 13.02.2016 IN ITA NO.389/2011 - 12/CIT(A)/TRY PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 2 50(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LI MITATION OF 12 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAIN ING THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY STATIN G THE 2 ITA NO.1853/MDS/2014 APPELLANTS REPRESENTATIVE M/S. KNR ASSOCIATES, C.A S WAS ENTRUSTED TO FILE THE APPEAL; HOWEVER THEY FAILED T O DO SO BY OVERSIGHT AS THEY WERE RELOCATING THEIR OFFICE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE SAME. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABL E CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. HENCE IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS F OLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.87,50,50 0/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENTS. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.74,10,00 0/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENTS. III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,32,000 /- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 3 ITA NO.1853/MDS/2014 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS DUE TO THE R EASON THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEF ORE THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BANK DEPOSITS WERE AR ISING FROM ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL INCOME THOUGH IT IS NO T DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS ABOUT 45 ACRES OF LAND IN TI RUNELVELI DISTRICT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORT UNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT HE MAY BE ABLE TO CONVINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE CULTIVATION OF MINT SAPLINGS AS WELL AS EXTRACTION OF OIL FROM IT. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS AGR ICULTURAL LAND AND IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AS WE LL AS BUSINESS OF TRADING COFFEE POWDER AND EXTRACTION OF MINT OIL. SINCE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E IS OF 4 ITA NO.1853/MDS/2014 CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE I NCOME AND A PETTY BUSINESS OF TRADING COFFEE POWDER AND MINT OIL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSID ERATION, THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE REVENUE TO ADMIT ANY F RESH EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE REFRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT AND ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTL Y CO- OPERATIVE WITH THE REVENUE IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS, FA ILING WHICH THE REVENUE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER MERIT & LAW BASED ON THE AVAILABLE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 6 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 6 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF