JAGANATHANBALASINGH, ERODE V. ACIT , CIRCLE - 2 , ERODE

ITA 630/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan and Shri Jaganathan Balasingh against the revision orders passed by the PCIT, Coimbatore. The revisions were related to assessments made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the lack of adequate opportunity for the assessees to present their case or submit written representations before the PCIT, which was argued to be a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal noted the medical issues faced by Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan, which contributed to the delay in filing the appeals, and accepted the condonation of delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135187 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 629/CHNY/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan, Prop: Jagan Metal Mart, Canara Bank Building, Modachur, Gobichettipalayam – 638 452. PAN: AEWPJ 8097A vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Erode. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 630/CHNY/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jaganathan Balasingh, No.8, Mahalakshmi Metal Mart, Velappagounder Street, ChinnaModachur, Gobichettipalayam – 638 452. PAN: AHHPB 6693E vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Erode. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮकᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2023 2 ITA Nos. 629 & 630/Chny/2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: These two appeals by the assessees are arising out of different revision orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore -1 in Revision No.PCIT,Coimbatore-1/ Revision 263/100000325500/2022 & PCIT,Coimbatore-1/Revision-263/ 100000324582/2022 dated 25.03.2022 & 23.03.2022. The assessments were framed by the ACIT, Circle-2, Erode for the assessment year 2017-18, in both the assessees cases u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide orders of even date 30.12.2019. 2. At the outset it is noticed that these two appeals are barred by limitation by 63 days and 65 days and both the assessee’s have filed condonation petition supported by affidavit that Shri Annappandinadar Jagannathan, the assessee and father of Shri Jaganathan Balasingh, the second assessee was having medical issues and was advised complete rest by the Doctor. Both the assessee’s have enclosed the medical report. The affidavit states same medical reason, which is common in both the petitions and the relevant reads as under:- 3 ITA Nos. 629 & 630/Chny/2022 “I state that the father of the Petitioner / Appellant, Mr. Annapandinadar Jaganathan was facing multiple medical issues and was advised to take complete rest by his doctor (The Medical Report is enclosed). I state that the medical ails faced by the father of the Petitioner / Appellant coupled with frequent visits to the Hospital to avail medical treatment had prevented me in approaching the Chartered Accountant / Counsel on record for filing the appeal against the impugned order within the prescribed time period and I state that the bad health unexpectedly faced by my father would constitute reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order and for adjudication of the issues on merits.” From the reasons stated, it seems that cause is reasonable seeing the length of delay. Hence, we condone the delay and admit these two appeals for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to para 4 of the revision order, which is common in both the appeals except the date. The ld.counsel drew our attention to the following para 4 in ITA No.629/Chny/2022 in the case of Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan:- “4. In response to the above show cause notice, the case was posted for hearing on 17/03/2022. The assessee was given opportunity to appear in person or through their authorized representative or to file written submissions. However, none appeared on the hearing date, nor any written submissions were received. Therefore, the present proceedings initiated u/s.263 of the Act is disposed off based on material available on record.” 4 ITA Nos. 629 & 630/Chny/2022 Similarly the other assessee in ITA No.630/Chny/2022 in the case of Jaganathan Balasingh was also posted for hearing on 15.03.2022 and finally revision orders were passed on 23.03.2022 and 25.03.2022. The ld.counsel stated that both the assessees case was posted only one week prior to passing of the revision orders and no substantial opportunities to represent or to file details or to file submissions are allowed by PCIT. Hence according to him, this is violation of principles of natural justice and requested that for proper adjudication of the issue deliberated up by PCIT in regard to excess stock to be added as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act is to be explained. Hence, the ld.counsel requested that these two revision orders can be set aside and matter can be remanded back to the file of PCIT for readjudicating the issue after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When these facts were confronted to ld. CIT-DR, he could not controvert the above fact situation. 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts in both the appeals, we find that the revision order passed by PCIT in both the cases is in clear violation of principles of natural justice as the assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. Hence, we set aside the orders of PCIT passing revision 5 ITA Nos. 629 & 630/Chny/2022 order and remand the matter back to the file of the PCIT for fresh adjudication. The appeal of both the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos.629 & 630/CHNY/2022 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7 th February, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 7 th February, 2023 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.