SHRI C. MURUGESAN, CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW - 22 (3), CHENNAI

ITA 1868/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0469 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH : CHENNAI , . , [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] !' ./I.T.A. NO.1868/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. SHRI. C. MURUGESAN, NO.10/852A, SOMASUNDARAM STREET, GAYATRI NAGAR, MEDAVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 100. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 22(3) CHENNAI. [PAN AEVPM 9402K] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) !' '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, IRS, JCIT. # - ) . /DATE OF HEARING : 09-09-2019 /0&% ) . /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-09-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-10, CHENNAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 30.04.2019 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-2013. ITA NO.1868 /2019 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -10, CHENNAI DATED 30.04.2019 IN L.T.A.NO.12118-I9ICIT(A)-10 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS, AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS TIME BARRED BY LIMITATION FOR THE REASONS MOREFULLY CAPTURED FROM PARA 51 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION AND OUGH T TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE NON CONSIDERATION OF THE REASONS ADDUCED FOR THE BELATED FILING OF THE APPEAL BY 149 DAYS PROPERLY WOULD VITIATE THE RELATED FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ACTION IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 149 DAYS IN FILING THE F IRST APPEAL WAS WRONG, ERRONEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE THE NON ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES RAIS ED FORMING PART OF THE STATUTORY FORM NO.35 WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE NON CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES ON MERITS WOULD VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THER E WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BEFORE PASSING OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES NATURAL JUSTICE WOULD BE NULLITY IN LAW. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS/ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE AY 2012- ITA NO.1868 /2019 :- 3 -: 13 WAS FILED ON 01.03.2014 DECLARING NIL INCOME. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY I NCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 13(5), CHENNAI VIDE ORD ER DATED 25.03.2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,90,952/-. WHIL E DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE MADE CASH D EPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT IN INDIAN BANK, MADIPAKKAM BRANCH, CH ENNAI. DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE C ASH DEPOSITS, ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION IN THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF F7,49,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIM INE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 149 DAYS IN FILING THE APPE AL. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT GRANTED SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHILE DIS POSING THE APPEAL. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTR OVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE REMIT THE ITA NO.1868 /2019 :- 4 -: ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ! '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1 #- / CHENNAI 2# / DATED: 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. KV 3 ) +.4 5' !6 5&. / COPY TO: 1 . !' '( / APPELLANT 3. 7. (!' ) / CIT(A) 5. 5 :; +.#< / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. 7. / CIT 6. ;$ =- / GF