KRISHNASAMY SATHYANATHAN RAMPRASAD,CHENGALPATTU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP. WARD 22(4), TAMBARAM., TAMBARAM

ITA 3364/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Krishnasamy Sathyanathan Ramprasad, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which included unexplained investments and unexplained cash credits. The Assessing Officer had initially reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to undisclosed investments and cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution as the appellant failed to respond to multiple notices. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances of the appellant's non-appearance and health issues, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer with specific conditions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107411 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SASIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. LAKSHMI NARAYANA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 69; 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3364/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishnasamy Sathyanathan Ramprasad, No. 174, Anna Salai, Chengalpattu 603 001. [PAN:AEMPR9403C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Tambaram, Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is I.T.A. No.3364/Chny/24 2 justified in confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We note that the assessee filed original return of income admitting net taxable income at ₹.6,98,850/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the case for assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] towards investment in land and building in M/s. Nanmayam Health Center amounting to ₹.62,97,618/- and cash deposit of ₹.40,000/-. Against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 30.04.2022. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. Despite various notices issued including show-cause notice & letter, the details and documents called for in respect of the investment in land and building and cash deposit remained unexplained and hence, the Assessing Officer treated the investment in land and building of M/s. Nanmayam Health Centre at ₹.62,97,618/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and cash deposit of ₹.40,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, rental income admitted at ₹.9,68,000/- which has not been reflected in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act is brought to tax under the head I.T.A. No.3364/Chny/24 3 income from house property. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution since there was no response to various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate submits that non appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control. He also submits that the notices sent through email were completely missed out as the assessee is not conversant with the e-proceedings and electronic devises. He further submits that even before the ld. CIT(A), in the condonation petition against the delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has submitted that due to his ill health/not knowing the procedure of appeal filing etc., prayed for condonation of delay, which was duly considered by the ld. CIT(A). He prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue his case before the Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 4(a) of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. He vehemently argued that costs may be imposed in case I.T.A. No.3364/Chny/24 4 this Tribunal afford an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the condition of payment of ₹.5,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the Assessing Officer shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th February, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 28.02.2025 I.T.A. No.3364/Chny/24 5 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. "