, C/ SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.408 /MDS./2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ) SRI SEETHARAM PRASAD NETTAM , NEW NO.47,OLD NO.23, 1 ST MAIN ROAD,SHENOY NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI-30. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 18(2), CHENNAI-34. PAN ADHPN 2066 R ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.D.ANAND, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT, D.R ! ' / DATE OF HEARING : 22.11.2017 #$%& ! ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.12.2017 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-15, CHENN AI DATED 31.05.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO. 408/MDS/2017 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS F OR CONSIDERATION. 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N SUSTAINING AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,00,000 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOU T GOING THROUGH THE FACTS. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRONEO USLY ASSUMED THE INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE FATHE R OF APPELLANT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT T HAT THE CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS THE INCOME RELATING TO THE HUF IN WHICH THE APPELLANTS FATHER IS THE KARTA. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 18.11 ACRES BELONGS TO HUF WAS ANCESTRAL LAND. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT T O HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT HOLDING A PAN IS NOT THE CRITERIA OF EXIS TENCE OF THE HUF. THE HUF HAD ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NO INCOME SUBJ ECT TO TAX. 3. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A DE LAY OF 171 DAYS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. A CONDONATION PETITION WAS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 21-04-2017 SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS AU DITORS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, T HEREBY COMMUNICATION GAP RESULTING IN A DELAY. THE ASSESSE E IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE, BEING EMPLOYED AS A CHEF AT THE GRT HOTEL S AND NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE TIMELINE RELATING TO THE FILING OF APPEALS. THEN, THE ITA NO. 408/MDS/2017 3 ASSESSEE APPROACHED FIRM OF M/S.SUBRAMANIAN & SWAMI NATHAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ON THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2017 FOR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. M/S.SUBRAMANIAN & SWAMINATHAN, CHARTERED A CCOUNTANTS TOOK IMMEDIATE STEPS TO FILE THE APPEAL ON 17TH FEB RUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE BEN CH TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CONDONATION P ETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN MY OPINION, THERE EXISTS REASONABL E CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME AS THE EARLIER AUDITOR HA S NOT TAKEN ANY INTEREST IN PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A ) AS WELL AS FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, WHICH FORCED THE A SSESSEE TO CHANGE THE AUDITOR AND TO CHOOSE A NEW COUNSEL. ACCORDINGL Y, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. SINCE THE AP PEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR NON-PROSECUTION, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS DUE TO FAILURE OF THE AUDITOR TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IN MY OPINION, THERE IS A REASONABLE CAU SE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 408/MDS/2017 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- ( ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER CHENNAI, DATED THE 05 TH DECEMBERR, 2017 . K S SUNDARAM. ' ( )!*+ ,+%! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ' ' -! () / CIT(A) 5. +0 1 )!)23 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ' ' -! / CIT 6. 1 45 6 / GF