JEYASEKARAN BALAJI,DINDIGUL V. ITO, WARD-1, DINDIGUL

ITA 2077/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jeyasekaran Balaji, the appellant, who is contesting an assessment order by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dindigul, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant was accused of not filing a return of income and was found to have made substantial cash deposits and sold immovable property, which led to a reassessment under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initial assessment treated significant cash withdrawals as unaccounted income and disallowed claims for long-term capital gains exemption due to lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld these findings, leading to the current appeal. The tribunal's decision to remand the case was based on the failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice, as the appellant did not receive proper notice of the hearings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472443 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWIN D GOWDA; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: B. AGNUS JENNIFER
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 147; 148; 54

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल ,लेखा सद˟ एवं माननीय ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2077/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jeyasekaran Balaji, 126E, Main road, Nanni Ammal Pettai, Dindigul 624 001. [PAN: AEGPB 9710G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dindigul. (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B. Agnus Jennifer, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by :Shri Ashwin D Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065441098 (1) dated 06.06.2024. The assessment was framed by the Additional /Joint/Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 21.03.2022. 2 ITA No.2077 /Chny/2024 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and he is an non filer of Return of Income. However, the Department was in possession of the information that the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, that the appellant had deposited cash in Current Account to the tune of Rs. 1,20,20,651/- and also sold immovable property of Rs. 55,00,000/-. Hence, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant failed to substantiate by filing documentary evidences to support cash deposits and in respect to other additions. The AO completed assessment u/s. 147 rws 144 on 21.03.2022, after making the following disallowances :- i Treating cash withdrawal as unaccounted and unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 1,12,20,654/-. ii Disallowance of claim of LTCG exemption u/s. 54 in the absence of documentary evidences Rs. 38,12,500/-. iii Commission Income on which TDS deducted u/s. 194D Rs.2240. iv Income as per computation furnished by the appellant during the course of the assessment Rs.4,19,533/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits, although assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) despite five notices issued. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice in true spirit. Ld.CIT(A) issued notices which were inadvertently not noticed by the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before 3 ITA No.2077 /Chny/2024 ld.CIT(A), assessee will prosecute the appeal properly. Per contra, Ld.Addl.CIT-DR relied upon the order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.CIT(A) to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) who shall proceed for denovo adjudication of appeal after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appellate proceedings as per law. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल) (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :23-10-2024 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "