SHRI T.S. PICHUMANI, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CC - IV (1), CHENNAI

ITA 2600/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5159 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Section: 143(1); 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI , , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2600/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI T.S. PITCHUMANI, FLAT NO.A 44 BLOCK OAK, CITY MEADOWS, 82, ANDAL AMMAN STREET, NOLAMBUR, CHENNAI 600 095. [PAN: AAGPP 6530N] VS. THE DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(1), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT) ( &'( /RESPONDENT) ( / APPELLANT BY : MR. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE &'( /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SURESH PERIASAMY, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.09.2021 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNAI IN I.T.A NO.18/2010-11/A.Y. 2005-06/CIT(A)-4 DATED 26.06.201 9 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL WITHOUT PAYING OF PAYMENT FOR REQUISITE FEE. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP BY THE REGISTRY FOR I.T.A NO.2600/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: SCRUTINY, THEY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED CHALLAN WHICH SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF REQUISITE FEE AS PER INCOME TA X RULES AND THE REGISTRY IS TREATED IT AS A DEFECT APPEAL. THE ASS ESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY STATING THAT HIS DAY TO DAY LIFE RUNS ONLY ON THE MONEY PROVIDED BY HIS SON AND HE IS NOT IN A POSITI ON TO PAY THE FEE AS REQUIRED BY INCOME TAX RULES AND THAT HE MAY BE TRE ATED AS AN INDIGENT PERSON AND REQUESTED FOR EXEMPTION OF PAYM ENT OF REQUISITE FEE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,94,448/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER AS THE ACT) ON 26.07.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREIN AFTER AS A.O) HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE A.O OF M/S. ALL-IN-ON E INFOTECH PVT. LTD. THAT THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 9 5,00,000/-, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 25,78,450/- AND UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 10,07,000/- AND THE A.O EXAMINED THE RETURN OF INCO ME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N AND NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE A.O IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND THE A.O HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND REOPENED THE CASE AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. FR OM THE I.T.A NO.2600/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSE E APPEARED ONLY ONCE ON 10.12.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED EVEN FOR SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AND NO REPLY WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN VARIOUS DATED FOR HEARING AND ON 0 8.08.2011, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPEA RED AND ASKED ADJOURNMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR VARIOUS DATES I.E., 11.11..2011, 02.12.2011, 13.01.2012, 19.11.2012, 05 .08.2013. 03.10.2013, 21.10.2013, 07.11.2013, 06.02.2014, 20. 01.2016, 02.02.2017, 15.11.2018, 28.11.2018, 12.12.2018, 28. 12.2018, 15.04.2019, 30.04.2019 & 23.05.2019. INSPITE OF SE VERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE L D. CIT(A) THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE OR DER ON 26.09.2019. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED B EFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEES SON IS WORKING AT USA AND THE ASSESS EE IS RESIDING IN THE HOUSE BELONGING TO HIS SON AND ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEES DAY TO DAY LIFE RUNS ONLY ON THE MONEY PROVIDED BY HIS SON. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TREATED AS AN INDIGENT PERSON AND EXEMPTION MAY BE GRANTED FOR NON PAYMENT OF FEE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ITA T G BENCH, MUMBAI I.T.A NO.2600/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: IN THE CASE OF YESHASHREE YOGESH NAIK V. DY. CIT [2011] 44 SOT 1 (MUM.). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O NOR BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE A.O AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN VA RIOUS OPPORTUNITIES BUT THE ASSESSEE NOT UTILIZED THE SAME. NOW THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE IS AN INDIGENT PERSON AND HE IS DEPEND U PON THE MONEY SEND BY HIS SON. THE ASSESSEE NOT FILED ANY DETAILS TO S HOW THAT HE IS AN INDIGENT PERSON SUCH AS BANK STATEMENT AND HOUSE WH ICH HE IS RESIDING TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT HIS OWN. THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT STATING HE IS INDIGENT PERSON, NO DETAILS WAS FILED FOR THE SAME. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO BY CONSIDERI NG THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS IND IGENT PERSON. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR E XEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF TAX AND THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON -RECTIFYING THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SO FAR AS THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. I.T.A NO.2600/CHNY/2019 :- 5 -: 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (G. MANJUNATHA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (V. DURGA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 . EDN/- /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF