NATESAN PARANTHAMAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2497/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Natesan Paranthaman against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The assessee, represented by Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate, argued that the non-representation was due to oversight of the notices by the assessee's tax consultant. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence concerning the assessee's business activities and financial transactions, which were not previously presented due to procedural constraints. The Departmental Representative supported the decisions of the AO and CIT(A). However, the Tribunal found merit in providing the assessee another opportunity to present his case with the new evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36143 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.V. MUTHU ABIRAMI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2497/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Natesan Paranthaman, 61, Karuna Filling Station, Bypass Road, Redhills, Chennai – 600 052. PAN: AADPP 4740M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -10(3), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 31.07.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. At the very outset, we notice the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. The reason for passing an ex-parte order was that - 2 - ITA No.2497/CHNY/2024 the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority for furnishing submissions / documents in support of his case. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the employee of assessee’s tax consultant had given his e-mail ID and the assessee did not take note of the notices issued from the office of the FAA. Hence, there is non-representation before the FAA. It was submitted by the ld. AR that assessee became aware of the CIT(A) passing the impugned order only when he received notice u/s.221 of the Act. Further, the assessee had submitted two sets of paper-book. In one set of paper- book, the assessee has enclosed evidences filed before the AO. In the other set of paper-book, the assessee has filed additional evidences and a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. It was stated by the ld.AR, the assessee had furnished the necessary documents / evidences in support of the source of cash deposits during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the AO wanted the necessary evidence in a particular format, which could not be filed before the completion of the assessment. It was further submitted by the ld.AR, since the proceedings before the FAA was ex-parte, the additional evidences now filed before the Tribunal - 3 - ITA No.2497/CHNY/2024 could not be filed before the CIT(A). It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue raised in this appeal may be restored to the files of the AO, since the additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal goes to the root of the matter. 4. The ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee before the AO had furnished copy of balance sheet, statement of affairs along with the detailed schedules, bank account statement, IOC statement, etc. The assessee before the Tribunal has filed a petition for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The additional evidences now sought to be admitted is with regard to the proof that assessee is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), copy of GST registration, copy of the IOCL statement for the financial year 2016-17, copy of bank statement pertaining to financial years 2015-16 & 2016-17, copy of statement of cash deposits made during the financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17, copy of statement of cash sales made during the financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17, copy of statement of total purchases and sales made for the relevant financial year, copy of VAT return filed for the financial - 4 - ITA No.2497/CHNY/2024 years 2014-15 to 2016-17, copy of the daily sales record pertaining to sale of petrol and diesel for the relevant financial year, etc., These details now submitted before the Tribunal was directed to be furnished by the AO and due to lack of time, the assessee could not file in a particular format as directed by the AO. The additional evidences now filed before the Tribunal goes to the root of the matter namely explanation of source of cash deposits made during the relevant assessment year. Hence, the same is admitted and taken on record. 6. In fact, the proceedings before the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued from the office of the FAA to furnish evidence / documents in support of the source of cash deposits. We find that the e-mail ID furnished before the FAA in Form No.35 is different from the e-mail ID furnished in Form No.36. It is the claim of the assessee that the staff of the tax consultant who had appeared before the CIT(A) had furnished his e-mail ID and the hearing notices from the office of the FAA was not brought to the notice of the assessee nor the AR. Consequently, the proceedings before the FAA remained ex-parte. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case. Since - 5 - ITA No.2497/CHNY/2024 additional evidences had been submitted before the Tribunal and same is taken on record, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO and accordingly, we do so. The AO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard in the matter. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment anymore. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 12th November, 2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "