, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , , ! '# BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO. 2141/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI. K. PALANIVEL, SP 75, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI 600 058. [PAN: AAKPP 1837A] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( $%&' /RESPONDENT ) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE $%&' ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. J. PAVITHRAN KUMAR, JCIT + (,! /DATE OF HEARING : 13.02.2020 -./ (,! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.02.2020 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 4 IN ITA NO. 7/2010-11/AY 2006-07/CIT(A)-4 DATED 05.04.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07. :-2-: ITA NO. 2141/CHNY/2018 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED W ITH A DELAY OF 42 DAYS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLATE ORDE R WAS MISPLACED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WITHOUT SHAR ING THE INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE PR OCESS OF CLOSING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT CAME TO LIGHT AND HENCE HE IMM EDIATELY TOOK STEPS TO RETRIEVE THE ORDER AND FILED THE APPEAL WHICH WA S BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NEITHER WILFUL OR DELIBERATE. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL OF 42 DAYS BE CONDONED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONDONE THE D ELAY. 4. SHRI. K. PALANIVEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS A MANAGING DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY M/S. DEXTERITY BUSINESS ANALYSTS (P) LTD. HIS ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS REOPENED AND THE AO ADD ED RS. 15 LAKHS TO THE RETURNED INCOME AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22 )(E) AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AG GRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH HE QUESTIONED T HE JURISDICTION ON VALIDITY OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147, T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE GROUND CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION U /S. 147 WITHOUT :-3-: ITA NO. 2141/CHNY/2018 ASSIGNING PROPER REASON AND JUSTIFICATION. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS LACK OF F RESH MATERIALS AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE APEX COUR T IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN 259 ITR 19 AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT MAD E IS VITIATED AND HENCE IT REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. PER CONTRA, THE L D. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS CLEAR FRO M THE RECORD THAT THE RETURN FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 31.07.2 006 WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) ON 04.06.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER R EOPENED AND COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE QUE STIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION, THE AO MAY SUPPLY THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE, ON WHICH IF THE ASSESSE E FILES OBJECTION, IF ANY, THE SAME MAY BE DISPOSED BY A SPEAKING ORDER A S PER THE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF 259 ITR 19. THEREA FTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE O F GKN DRIVESHAFTS INDIA LTD VS ITO, 259 ITR 19 (SC). :-4-: ITA NO. 2141/CHNY/2018 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) !' /VICE PRESIDENT SD/- ( # $ ) (S. JAYARAMAN) % & /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0' /DATED: 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 JPV '1($2,343/, /COPY TO: 1. &' / APPELLANT 2. $%&' /RESPONDENT 3. + 5, ) ( /CIT(A) 4. + 5, /CIT 5. 367$2,2 /DR 6. 789: /GF