KANDASAMY GOVINDARAJ,DHARMAPURI V. ITO, WARD-1, DHARMAPURI

ITA 365/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Kandasamy Govindaraj against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeals were against the ex parte orders passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, which added the entire cash deposit of Rs.50,17,691 as unexplained money under section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax, which the Tribunal found to be an incorrect application of the law, leading to the remand of the case for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315894 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Perumalpillai Sreenivasan Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KEERTHI NARAYANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S. MATHANGI; VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एबी टी वकŎ, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri – 636 703. vs. ITO, Ward -1, Dharmapuri. [PAN: ANPPG-2860-G] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual). ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the same assessment year 2012-13, dated 05.12.2023 and 19.07.2024 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ITA No.364/Chny/2025 1. The order of the First Appellate Authority is bad and erroneous in law. 2. The learned First Appellate Authority erred in invoking Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant. :-2-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 3. Without prejudice, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in simply endorsing the assessment order without considering that his powers are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned First Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the fact that the information available on the record, presumably AIR information, that the appellant has cash deposits, amounted to borrowed satisfaction, thereby making the entire reassessment proceedings null and void. ITA No.365/Chny/2025 1. The order of the First Appellate Authority is bad and erroneous in law. 2. When the Appellant has challenged the very assessment order, the consequential penalty order cannot stand the test of law. 3. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 341 days in appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.364/Chny/2025 and also there is a delay of 127 days in appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.365/Chny/2025, for which the assessee has filed separate affidavits stating the same reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee is uneducated and has not been communicated about the notices sent during the assessment proceedings because of the internal family disputes. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeals by the assessee. After considering the Affidavits filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual had not filed his return of income though he had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.50,17,691/- to his bank accounts. The case was reopened for assessment and AO had issued statutory notices. However, the assessee failed to respond :-3-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 to the notices and hence the AO passed an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 25.09.2021 by making an addition of entire cash deposit as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Further, the AO also passed an order dated 13.01.2022 by levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Act to the tune of Rs.13,98,027/-. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 6. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed appeal as not admitted u/s.249(4)(b) stating that the assessee had not made the payment of applicable advance tax. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has also stated that the assessee has not made any application as per the proviso to section 249(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the assessee is before us. 7. At the outset we find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee without admitting appeal as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In our considered view the question of payment of advance tax as provided in section 249(4)(b) of the Act does not arise in the reopened cases, where entire addition has been questioned in appeal by the assessee before the appellate authorities. Our above view has been affirmed by this Tribunal in the case Perumalpillai Sreenivasan Vs. ITO, in ITA No.3186/Chny/2024 dated 18.03.2025. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting and hence we are inclined to remit back to the issue to the files of the ld.CIT(A) by directing to adjudicate the issue on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. :-4-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 8. Since, the quantum appeal has been set aside to the files of the ld.CIT(A) to decide on merits, the penalty appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.365/Chny/2025, which is consequential to the outcome of the quantum appeal. Hence, we are setting aside this appeal also to the files of the ld.CIT(A) to decide on merits in accordance to law along with the quantum appeal. 9. In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th May, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वकŎ ) (ABY T VARKEY) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चेɄई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 15th May,2025 sp आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "