, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 2844/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 13 - 14 & S.P. NO. 316/MDS/2017[IN .T.A.NO. 2844/MDS/2017] M / S. SHREE GANESH VENTURES, NO. 14 - A, ENNOR HIGH ROAD, THIRUVOTTIYUR, CHENNAI 600 019. [PAN: A A OFS0487K ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , NON CORPORATE WARD 6(2) CHENNAI 600 006 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.V. SWAROOP , ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI N. MADHAVAN , AD DL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 01 . 12 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 15 . 12 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH I S APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) 5, CHENNAI DATED 1 7 .0 8 .201 7 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 13 - 14 . B ESIDES CHALLENGING CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AT .11,85,878/ - , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIALLY RAISED A GROUND THAT I.T.A. NO . 2844 /M/ 1 7 & S.P. NO. 316/MDS/17 2 WITHO UT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE EX - PARTE ORDER AND PRAYED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, A GAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED STAY PETITIO N TO GRANT STAY OF RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING TAX. 2. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 28 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT REQUESTING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. BY R EFERRING TO THE CONTENTS THEREIN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITIONER S PARTNER SHRI RAGHAV KUMAR SARAF IS LOOKING AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS AND SINCE HIS FATHER SHRI ASHOK SARAF WAS PERIODICALLY ILL AND NEEDED C ARE AND ATTENTION , HE WAS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 17.08.2017 AND CAME TO KNOW ONLY ON 20.10.2017. THUS, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS NEITHER WILFUL NOR WANTON AND PRAYED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. WE HAVE GONE THROUG H AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THE LD. DR COULD NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 28 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR H EARING. I.T.A. NO . 2844 /M/ 1 7 & S.P. NO. 316/MDS/17 3 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2013 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF .13,01,110/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 03.09 .2014 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR. AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT DATED 31.03.2016 BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .24,86,878/ - AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF .11,85,878/ - . 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM ASSESSEE S SIDE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHRI RAGHAV KUMAR SARAF IS LOOKING AFT ER THE INCOME TAX MATTERS AND SINCE HIS FATHER SHRI ASHOK SARAF WAS PERIODICALLY ILL AND I.T.A. NO . 2844 /M/ 1 7 & S.P. NO. 316/MDS/17 4 NEEDED CARE AND ATTENTION, HE WAS UNABLE TO CONCENTRATE OR ATTEND TO THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO PRESENT THE ASSESSEE S CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN TO PRESENT ITS CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORI TIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON - APPEARANCE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. S.P. NO. 316/MDS/2017[IN I.T.A. NO. 2844/MDS/2017] 7. SINCE THE A PPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THE I.T.A. NO . 2844 /M/ 1 7 & S.P. NO. 316/MDS/17 5 STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME STANDS DISMI SSED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 15 TH DECEMBER, 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDD Y ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 15 . 12 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.