KUPPUSAMY VADIVEL SELVAKUMAR ,CUDDALORE V. ITO, WARD-4, CUDDALORE

ITA 2133/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kuppusamy Vadivel Selvakumar, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's exparte order, which added substantial amounts to the assessee's income based on unresponded cash deposits. The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal was justified due to medical reasons and condoned the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present his case at earlier stages and thus remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107448 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P.M. KATHIR
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2133/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kuppusamy Vadivel Selvakumar, 1197/A Kumbakonam Road, Keezhakollai Marungur, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 607 103. [PAN:ENRPS9693P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Cuddalore. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 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 03.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 41 days. On perusal of the affidavit along with medical certificate, submissions of the ld. AR and ld. DR, we find the reasons explained by the assessee are I.T.A. No.2133/Chny/24 2 bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 41 days is condoned. 3. The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer exparte of the assessee. 4. At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income declaring total income at NIL. The Assessing Officer found the assessee made cash deposits in the State Bank of India, Neyveli Branch. On getting information under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] from the Branch Manager, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, there was no response from the assessee as it is reflecting in page 7 of the assessment order. As there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add an amount of ₹.12,25,000/- under section 69A of the Act and also an amount of ₹.10,26,104/- under the head “income from other sources” vide order dated 29.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). According to the ld. CIT(A), there was no response from the assessee and I.T.A. No.2133/Chny/24 3 accordingly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer as it is clear from para 4 of the impugned order. 6. Before us, the ld. AR Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate submits that the assessee has no opportunity before the authorities below and the assessee is ready to prosecute his case if this Tribunal remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. 7. The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT opposed the same. She argued that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) has given ample opportunities to the assessee, but, the assessee failed to utilise the same. She drew our attention to para 4 of the assessment order and para 4 of the impugned order. She argued that the assessee does not deserve any opportunity and moreover there was no proof of agricultural income. Thus, the ld. DR prayed to dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. 8. After hearing both the parties, we find the Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A of the Act and income from other sources, which requires assistance; undoubtedly, there was no assistance from the assessee. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, the assessee could not avail the opportunities afforded by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) in furnishing required details relevant to the addition made I.T.A. No.2133/Chny/24 4 therein, which clearly establishes that there is no assistance to the assessee the grounds raised before us. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, before the Assessing Officer. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 23.10.2024 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. "