KALICHAPPAN BASKARAN,PUDUKKOTTAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, INCOME TAX OFFICE

ITA 3008/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kalichiappan Baskaran, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pudukkottai, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi. The primary issues were the addition of Rs. 13,13,055 as cash deposits during the demonetization period and an estimation of undisclosed business income amounting to Rs. 2,80,640. Both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal noted the procedural inadequacies and the lack of a speaking order from the Assessing Officer, prompting a decision to remand the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34512 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: TIN box 249 ITR 216
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: I.ROOPA
• Assessee Lawyers: N.V. NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"Page - 1 - of 5 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3008/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Kalichiappan Baskaran, No.224 40D/4 Gandi Road, Alangudi, Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu-622301. [PAN: BAEPB4621F] The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pudukkottai (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri N.V.Narayanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. I.Roopa, Addl. CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057265791(1) dated 20.10.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 20.10.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi. ITA No. 3008 /Chny/2024 Page - 2 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 330 days in the appeals, in filing before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a semi-literate person having studied only upto 10th Std and therefore not conversant with tax intricacies. He was not aware that filing of appeal is barred by limitation period. He was also assisted by an ITP who again was not very proficient. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay save that costs be imposed for wasting the precious time of judicial authorites. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities the Ld.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex- parte orders in case of the assessee engaged in the agricultural activity. It was submitted that the twin issues under consideration is an addition of Rs.13,13,055/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period as well as estimation of undisclosed business income of Rs. 2,80,640/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by ITA No. 3008 /Chny/2024 Page - 3 - of 5 passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication. The Ld. Counsel assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices. The Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities. It was however simultaneously pleaded that costs be imposed upon the appellant for wasting the time of the Bench. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order, he had given opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition. We have however noted that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee. ITA No. 3008 /Chny/2024 Page - 4 - of 5 4.1 We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of deposits in assessee’s bank account lies at the core of the controversy. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The assessing officer is the primary authority under the income tax act to be examine facts of a case in the light of available evidences before determining correct taxable income of a tax payer. We therefore set aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and we direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. We however find force in the argument of the Ld. DR that assessee’s repeated non-compliance has indeed caused loss of precious time of the statutory authorities. Consequently, the decision to remit the matter to the Ld. AO is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all ITA No. 3008 /Chny/2024 Page - 5 - of 5 the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 4th , April-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- ( एबी टी. वकी) (ABY T VARKEY) न्यानयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अयिताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, नदिांक/Dated: 4th , April-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Assessee: 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Revenue 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Madurai 4. नवभागीय प्रनतनिनर्/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF "