ZEENATH BEGUM, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-6(1), CHENNAI

ITA 888/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7164 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘डी’ यायपीठ,चे ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद के सम , ी अिनके श बनज , ाियक सद एवं BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:888/Chny/2020 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2011 - 2012 Smt. Zeenath Begum, No.65 / 41, Wuthucattans Street, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. PAN : AAFPZ 7216 A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward – 6(1), No.121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/Appellant by : None यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश /O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: The instant appeal was filed by Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) – 5, Chennai (in brevity “the CIT(A)”), bearing order No. ITA No – 63/CIT (A) – 5/2018 – 19, order dated 23.12.2019, u/s.250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The said order was generated from the order of the Ld. Income ::2 :: I.T.A. No.888/Chny/2020 tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-6(1)/ Chennai u/s.143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, order dated 07–12-2018. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal of the Assessee is time barred by 255 days due to the outbreak of ‘Covid-19’ pandemic. The Hon’ble Bench took into cognizance the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the “Suo Moto WP 03/2020 dated 20.03.2020 while considering the condonation of delay. It is a fact that ‘Covid-19’ pandemic was prevalent and in term of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, we condone the delay of 255 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The brief fact is that the assessee and her husband purchased two flats for a total value of Rs.1,41,70,000/–. During assessment proceeding the Assessee accepted 50% of investment in her own behalf, which is amounting to Rs.70,85,000/–. For explanation of source of investment, the Assessee jointly with her husband took a loan for Rs.85,00.000/– from Gruh Finance. The assessee was able ::3 :: I.T.A. No.888/Chny/2020 to explain the source of investment only for an amount of R.42,50,000/– for the investment in the property out of loan. The balance amount Rs. 28,35,000/- (Rs. 70,85,000/- minus Rs. 42,50,000/-) was remained unexplained before the ld. Assessing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer finally added back the un-explained source of investment of Rs.28,35,000/- with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). But the learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed before us. 4. During the proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], no one was present on behalf of Assessee. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that during the appeal before the learned CIT(A) also, no one was present from the end of Assessee. The learned CIT(A)passed the order exparte. The Assessee was unable to redress her grievance before the Appellate Authority. ::4 :: I.T.A. No.888/Chny/2020 5. The Assessee filed her submission with the paper book dated 17.10.2020 before the Bench which is being kept on record. The Assessee in the submission explained that the Assessee was a seller of Biriyani. The Assessee’s husband was running a shop under the name and style of M/s Nayeem Trading Corporation. As per the explanation, the balance amount was invested from surplus of business. Also the confirmation from Sunday creditors, an amount of Rs.12.65 Lakhs is annexed with the submission. The evidences which are enclosed along with the paper book were showing the clear intention of the Assessee to explain the balance investment before the adjudicating authority. 6. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the assessee has taken number of adjournments before the ld. CIT(A) during the appeal proceeding. The appellate authority allowed the adjournments six times. Finally, an exparte order was passed. 7. We considered the documents available in the records. The Assessee was unable to explain her submission before the revenue authorities. Further adjudication is ::5 :: I.T.A. No.888/Chny/2020 required for explanation of balance source of investment. With the consent of the learned Departmental Representative the matter is being set aside before the learned CIT(A) for further consideration of the same issue. The Assessee is directed to produce all relevant documents before the learned CIT(A) for further adjudication. Also, the reasonable opportunity should be allowed to the Assessee for the redressal of her grievance. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A No.:888/Chny/2020 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 15 th June,2022at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जीमंजूनाथा) (G. MANJUNATHA) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (अिनके श बनज ) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ाियकसद एवं /JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई /Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 15 th June, 2022 IA, Sr. PS आदेशकी#ितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. #(थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु+ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु+/CIT 5. िवभागीय#ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड0फाईल/GF