KANNIAPPAN PERUMAL, CHENNAI V. ITO, WARD - 10(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3227/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0404 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. BALAJI LD

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय .ी महावीर िसंह, उपा45 एवं माननीय .ी मनोज कु मार अ:वाल ,लेखा सद= के सम5। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3227/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Kanniappan Perumal No.8, Narasimha Nagar, 2 nd Street, Pulianthope, Chennai – 600 012. बनाम/ V s. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Chennai. थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./P AN /GI R No . AGJ P P -9 5 0 8 - B (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R.S. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. AR थ की ओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 10-01-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 10-01-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 31.12.2018 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of addition of Rs.6.89 Lacs in the impugned order. ITA No.3227/Chny/2019 - 2 - 2. The registry has noted a delay of 262 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of assessee’s affidavit dated 25.11.2019. It has been submitted by the assessee that all the records, documents and order copies were handed over to auditor who could not file appeal in time since his mother expired at that time. Though the Ld. DR opposed the admission of appeal, however, keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a resident individual and a small tax payer, we condone the delay and proceed with the adjudication of appeal on merits. 3. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be gathered that the assessee invested a sum of Rs.6.89 Lacs through bank. However, the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of investment and accordingly, the amount of Rs.6.89 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee by Ld. AO. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the source of investment was unsecured loans taken by assessee from 6 persons as detailed in para 6.1 of impugned order. However, the plea was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) by observing that full details were not furnished and the documents were incomplete. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity to substantiate the source of investment. Keeping in view the same, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file sufficient documentary evidences to the satisfaction of lower authorities to substantiate the source of investment failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the adjudication on the basis of material on record. ITA No.3227/Chny/2019 - 3 - 5. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10 th January, 2022. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा45 /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद= / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे)ई / Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 10-01-2022 EDN/- आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF