JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1962/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals filed by the assessee, Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeals were related to additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of short term capital gains and discrepancies in the sales consideration and market price of immovable property. The Tribunal noted that the additions were made in the absence of any representation from the assessee. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present his case and evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773446 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDHYA RANI KURE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHAV MENON; GAUTAM VENKATANARAYANAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 154

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी रȉेश नंदन सहाय, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AAOPI4540B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This three appeals filed by the assessee is directed against different orders dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 respectively. 2. These appeals filed by same assessee involving common issue on identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 2 these appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 1964/Chny/2025 for AY 2017-18 against order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5. At the outset, we not that the Assessing Officer made two additions on account of short term capital gains and also being the difference between total sales consideration and the market price of the immovable property vide para 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Further, we note that the Assessing Officer made such additions in the absence of representation on behalf of the assessee, which is clear from the discussion made by the Assessing Officer in para 3.1 and 4.4 of the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 3 Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, we note that the said appeal was dismissed for non-filing of any cogent evidence as regards reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, which is clear from para 3 at page 3 of the impugned order. 6. The ld. AR Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the Assessing Officer without fail. The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT did not report any objection. 7. Having heard both the parties and in view of the discussion we made herein above, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer without fail and file evidence in support of his claim, if any. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1962/Chny/2025 for AY 2017-18 under section 154 of the Act. 8. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 4 we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 9. The ld. AR submits that this appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed under section 154 of the Act, which becomes infructuous in case this Tribunal remands the appeal in ITA No. 1964/Chny/2025 to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Since we have remanded the appeal in ITA No. 1964/Chny/2025 to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and after hearing the ld. DR, we treat this appeal as infructuous and dismiss the same accordingly. ITA No.1963/Chny/2025 for AY 2017-18 under section 270A of the Act 10. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 5 11. The ld. AR submits that this appeal is filed against the penalty order under section 270A of the Act dated 29.09.2022 against the quantum addition under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022. The ld. AR prayed that since the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal in ITA No.1964/Chny/2025, the present appeal filed against the penalty order may also be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer. After hearing the ld. DR, we accept the submissions of the ld. AR and remand the present appeal to the file of the Assessing officer in view of our decision in ITA No. 1964/Chny/2025. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1964 & 1963/Chny/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No. 1962/Chny/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 23.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 6 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "