KP AGENCIES PRINTING DEPARTMENT,SIVAKASI V. ITO, NCC-2, MADURAI

ITA 1812/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves K.P. Agencies Printing Department, which appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A), Chennai) for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially dismissed due to a delay of 771 days, attributed to the illness of the Managing Partner and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the addition of Rs.63,65,000, which was claimed to be an unexplained cash deposit. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not adequately analyzed the merits of the case and that the assessee had not been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772023 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: TIN box 249 ITR 216
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEERAMANY K; IRS
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु क ुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े सिक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1812/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - 2017-18 K.P. Agencies Printing Department, No.203A, Gnanagiri Road, Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu-626 189. [PAN: AABFK8736C] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Circle-2, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assesseee by : Mr.T.Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.Veeramany K, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 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 / APL / S / 250 / 2025-26 / 1075776339(1) dated 23.04.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Chennai, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1812 /Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 5 2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 dated 29.12.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assessee had committed delay of 771 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the Managing Partner of the assessee firm one Shri K. P. Pounrajan had fallen ill to jaundice and bedridden for a long time. The delay was also attributable to Covid-19 pandemic. It was also submitted that the AR of the assessee had also met with an accident and broken his leg. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. AO for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. AO. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a paper book. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assessee as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. We have noted that the issue at hand involves addition of Rs.63,65,000/- on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1812 /Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 5 account of statement given by the assessee during survey that it is unable to justify the source of cash deposit of even amount. We have noted that the Ld.AO has also passed an exparte order u/s 144 as the assessee had not responded to its notices. 5.0 Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter concerning unexplained cash deposit received by the assessee have not been objectively and comprehensively analyzed by the lower authorities. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and filed supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. Without prejudice it has also been noted that in this case the Ld. AO did not have adequate opportunities to examine the varied facts seminal therein. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the issue of addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 63,65,000/- which have been contested by the assessee through grounds of appeal stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo by passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1812 /Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 5 stands set aside. 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. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences filed through its paper book before us including any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. This order is however subject to a cost of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to be paid 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 the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. . Order pronounced on 25th , Aug-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (मनु क ुमार धिरर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 25th , Aug-2025. KB/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1812 /Chny/2025 Page - 5 - of 5 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF Printed from counselvise.com "