KUMAR SUNDAR,DHARMAPURI V. ITO, WARD-1, KRISHNAGIRI

ITA 2371/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Kumar Sundar, against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal in limine without condoning a delay of 145 days. The assessee had not filed a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19, and was found to have made cash deposits of Rs. 2.99 crores, along with receipts of TDS on commission from Airtel Payment Bank Limited and Bharti Airtel Limited. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and passed an ex parte order under sections 144 r.w.s. 147, making an addition of Rs. 3,06,02,650. The Tribunal heard the arguments from both sides and decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472167 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: C. KARTHICK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 148; 144; 139(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ के, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2371/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kumar Sundar, No.4/347, Barur Main Road, Pochampalli Bendarahalli, Arasampatti B.O., Dharmapuri – 635 201. [PAN: GNCPS-7449-E] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Krishnagiri – 635 001. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. C. Karthick, Advocate for Shri. Sai Krishna, ACA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2018-19. :-2-: ITA. No: 2371/Chny/2024 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As per the information flagged on ‘insight portal’ on I.T. Department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made a cash deposits of Rs2.99 crores in Andhra Bank, along with receipt of TDS on commission from Airtel Payment Bank Limited and Bharti Airtel Limited from the assessment year 2018-19 and issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2022. The Assessing Officer had issued various notices from 31.03.2022 to 16.03.2023 and assessee has failed to respond to all the notices and hence, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147of the Act on 24.03.2023 by making an addition of Rs.3,06,02,650/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC with a delay of 145 days . 3. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal stating that the appellant has failed to give any sufficient cause for the same. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. :-3-: ITA. No: 2371/Chny/2024 4. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee had furnished a detailed explanation in his petition seeking condonation of delay before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. However, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and hence, there is no adjudication of the appeal of the assessee on merits. Therefore, the ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC and remit the file back to the Assessing Officer, since the Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order for denovo assessment. 5. Per contra, the ld.DR fairly accepted for remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the Assessing Officer has passed exparte order by considering the information available with the Department and making an addition of Rs.3.06 crores and the same has not been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC while dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Therefore, we set aside the appeal of the ld.CIT(A) by condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] :-4-: ITA. No: 2371/Chny/2024 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the assessment in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 22nd November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 22nd November, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT – Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "