R.GURUSAMY, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 3042/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3199 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AR V SREENIVASANJCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 43; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3042/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI R.GURUSAMY , 29/2,VIVEKANANDAN STREET, T.NAGAR,CHENNAI 600 017. VS. THE INCOME T AX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-1(2), CHENNAI-34. [PAN AAJPG 6784 G ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.BASKAR,ADVOCATE !' /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR. V.SREENIVASAN,JCIT ,D.R # $ %& / DATE OF HEARING : 20.01. 2020 '( %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 03 - 20 20 ! / 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)-2, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.31/C.I.T(A)-2/2015-16, DATED 22.02.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ITA NO.3042/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY O F 549 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNEDUCATED PERSON AND DEPENDENT ON O THERS FOR ENTIRE COURSE OF ACTION RELATING TO HIS APPEAL AND TAX MAT TERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON TH E ADVICE OF HIS COUNSEL AND HE COMPLETELY RELIED ON HIS COUNSEL. HO WEVER, THE LD. A.R. MISERABLY FAILED TO SUBMIT THE CASE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND HENCE, HE LOST THE APPEAL. MEANWHILE, HE WAS SUFFERING FROM PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY (PDR),NEOVA SCULAR/RUBEOTIC GLAUCOMA FOR HIS RIGHT EYE, ETC. SINCE HIS PREVIOUS COUNSEL HAS NOT SUGGESTED THE OPTION OF FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE IMPUGNED APPEAL WAS DELAYED. FURTHER, HE HAD TO CHA NGE HIS PREVIOUS COUNSEL AND SEARCH FOR A NEW COUNSEL WHICH FURTHER CAUSED THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL. HENCE, THE LD. A .R PLEADED THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, THIS DELAY MAY BE CONDONE D AND THE APPEAL BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 2.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NO T FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. TH EREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 549 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL AND ADM IT THE APPEAL. ITA NO.3042/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: 3. THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.GURUSAMY , AN INDIVIDUAL, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.KARTHIK CONSTRUCTIONS, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN ILLITERATE AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT UPON TAX CONSULTANT. WHILE CO MPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT ON 27.03.2015, INTER ALIA, MADE AN ADDITION OF 43 LAKHS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. WHILE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY, WHICH COULD BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED FROM THE ASSESSEES BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH INCLUDES BANKS STATEMENT AND HUF RETURN. THE REFORE, THE LD. A.R. PLEADED THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, A DU E OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE SHALL EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION, SO THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CAN DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERITS, THEREBY DUE JUSTICE COULD BE RENDERED TO TH E ASSESSEE. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS CANVASSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, WE ARE OF THE ITA NO.3042/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH EXAMINATION, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THE ISS UE TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DUE DECISION ON MERITS. THE ASSE SSEE SHALL PLACE RELEVANT MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS BE FORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER AFFOR DING EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE/A.O., AS THE CASE MAY B E, DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH MARCH, 2020, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ' # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) $ # /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) $ / CHENNAI * / DATED: 10 TH MARCH, 2020. K S SUNDARAM + !%,- . -% / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. # /% () / CIT(A) 5. -23 !%4 / DR 2. !' / RESPONDENT 4. # /% / CIT 6. 35 6$ / GF