R. Munusamy, Kalpakkam V. ITO, Non Corporate Circle 5(5), Chennai

ITA 2171/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5770 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN JCIT D R
• Assessee Lawyers: P RANGA RAMANUJAM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, B/ SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2171 /MDS./2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 ) SHRI R.MUNUSAMY , NO.382,METTU STREET, AYAPAKKAM VILLAGE(POST), KALPAKKAM 603 102. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(5), CHENNAI-6. PAN AUPPM 5917 N ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RANGA RAMANUJAM, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT, D.R ! ' / DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2017 #$%& ! ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.12.2017 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-5, CHENNA I DATED 27.06.2017 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. ITA NO. 2171/MDS/2017 2 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS FOR C ONSIDERATION. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS CONTRA RY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT GRA NTING THE CONDONATION FOR SHORT DELAY OF 9 DAYS OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), BY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS THEREBY FALLED TO FOLLOW THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN DECIDING THE APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF THE HIGH PITCHED ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE WHOLLY ON THE BASIS O F THE ORAL STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM THE POOR, ILLITERATE AND IGNO RANT APPELLANT WHO WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY COUNSEL. 4. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.18,87,848/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NTS WHEN THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE APPELLANT THEMSELVES CONFIRM THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRU CTION AND INVESTMENT IN LANDS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND STAT EMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF T HE CASE. 3. THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SHORT DEL AY OF 9 DAYS OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS), THAT WAS NOT CONDONED BY LD.CIT(A) ON REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD N OT EXPLAINED ITA NO. 2171/MDS/2017 3 THE DELAY PROPERLY BYWAY OF AFFIDAVIT. BEFORE US, THE LD.A.R FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE ASSESSEE STATING AS FOLLOWS:- 2) THAT I PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS -5), CHENNAI 600 034 AGAINST THE ASSESSI NG OFFICERS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) RWS 147 OF THE I.T.ACT , 1961 DT. 30/03/2016 FOR THE AY 2013 2014. 3) THAT I RECEIVED THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 01/04/2016. 4) THAT I AM MAINLY AN AGRICULTURIST CULTIVATING PA DDY AND COCONUT IN THE AGRICULTURE LANDS ME ABOUT 13 ACRES INHERITED FROM GRANDMOTHER BY OUR FAMILY, SITUATED AT AYAPAKKAM VILLAGE, KANCHIPURAM DIST - 603 102. I AM ALSO DERIVING RENTAL INCOME AND COMMISSION FROM NEA RBY LANDS BROKING. 5) THAT I HAVE NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME TILL THE RECEIPT OF NOTICES FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN THE YEAR 2015. HENCE I ENGAGED FOR THE FIRST TIME M/S. A. JOHN MOR IS & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO REPRESENT MYSELF BEFORE THE INCOME T AX AUTHORITIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BUT DURING THE MIDDLE OF TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEY WITHDREW FROM THE ENGAGEMENT AND I ONLY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TILL THE ASSESSMENT OR DERS ARE PASSED. 6. AFTER A REFERENCE THROUGH A FRIEND I ENGAGED THE AUDITORS, M/S. PADMANABHAN RAMANI & RAMANAJUM, CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN TS TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS). AS THEY WERE ALSO BUSY AND WAS OUT OF STATION FOR THE INDIAN BAN K STATUTORY AUDIT ASSIGNMENTS DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL, THE APPEAL P APERS COULD BE DRAFTED AND FILED AFTER A WHILE ON 9TH MAY 2016. ACCORDINGLY, LD.A.R PLEADED BEFORE US THAT THE SHOR T DELAY OF 9 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS BEEN CAUSED DUE TO THE TIME TAKEN FOR APPOINTING AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THESTIPULATED TIME. ITA NO. 2171/MDS/2017 4 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE CIT(APPEALS) STATING THAT BEFORE LD.CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE REASONS BY WAY OF PROPER EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN MY OPINION, THERE WAS A SHORT DELAY OF 9 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFO RE THE LD.CIT(A) BYWAY OF CONDONATION PETITION WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING THE SAME BY AN AFFIDAVIT. BEFORE THIS BENCH, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.11.2017 STATING THE SAME REASONS MENTIONED IN TH E CONDONATION PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN MY OPI NION, THERE EXISTS REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE LD.CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE SHORT DELAY OF 09 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 6. AT THIS STAGE, I REFRAIN FROM GOING INTO OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ON MERIT, SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDI CATED THIS CASEON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ITA NO. 2171/MDS/2017 5 IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- ( ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 04 TH DECEMBER, 2017 . K S SUNDARAM. ' ( )!*+ ,+%! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ' ' -! () / CIT(A) 5. +0 1 )!)23 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ' ' -! / CIT 6. 1 45 6 / GF