C.Dhanasekaran, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2654/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6383 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2654/CHNY/2018 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) SHRI C DHANASEKARAN, OLD NO.118, NEW NO.225, BAKVATHCHALAM COLONY, 2 ND STREET, CHENNAI 600 039. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI 600 034. PAN: AQXPD1769N ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : DR.S. PANDIAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2019 / 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)-5, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.179/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 DATED 29.06.2018, AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 17 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTING THAT HE WAS OUT OF STATION TO ATTEND HIS 2 ITA NO.2654/CHNY/2018 AILING MOTHER AT PARAMAGUDI AND HENCE THERE WAS A DELAY OF 17 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH IS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON, BUT MAINLY DUE TO THE PRESSING DEMANDS ON ATTENDING HIS AILING MOTHER. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON MERIT CONDONE THE DELAY. 3. SHRI C. DHANASEKARAN, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S.144 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.29,61,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S.69. THEREAFTER, HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C). SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REPRESENT THE CASE, HE LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) ALSO. MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S. 264 BEFORE THE PCIT-9, CHENNAI. THE PCIT REFRAINED FROM ENTERTAINING THE ASSESSEES PETITION U/S.264 AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IF HE WISHES SO, AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE STATUTES. THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE QUANTUM ISSUES ARE STATED TO BE PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER BEFORE THE CIT(A). ON DISMISSAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3 ITA NO.2654/CHNY/2018 4. THE LD.AR PLEADED THAT SINCE THE CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED PROPER MATERIALS TO PROVE THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S.144 IS NOT WARRANTED. SINCE THE QUANTUM APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IT IS PLEADED THAT THIS APPEAL MAY ALSO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THIS CASE ALONG WITH THE QUANTUM APPEAL. WE HEARD THE LD.DR. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SINCE THE QUANTUM APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE BOTH THE QUANTUM AS WELL AS PENALTY APPEALS TOGETHER. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 30 TH JULY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- /CHENNAI, /DATED 30 TH JULY, 2019 ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 ITA NO.2654/CHNY/2018 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. [ /GF