PALANISAMY RAVISANKAR,SANKARI V. ITO, WARD-1, SALEM

ITA 3185/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Palanisamy Ravisankar Aravankadu against the order of the CIT(A) - NFAC, which had dismissed his appeal in limine without condoning a delay of 670 days in filing. The primary issue was the levy of a penalty of Rs.1,50,000 under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-furnishing of an audit report as required under section 44AB. The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to extreme financial difficulties and multiple litigations, which were supported by documents presented during the tribunal hearing. The Income Tax Officer had earlier passed an ex-parte assessment order on best judgment basis, which included the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469612 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N.V. LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛन 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 PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3185/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palanisamy Ravisankar Aravankadu, Sanyasipatti Post, Sankari West Namakkal Dist.-637 303. PAN: ALLPR-2541-P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(7) Salem. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 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) - NFAC order dated 21.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 42 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal and also a supporting affidavit. - 2 - ITA No. 3185/CHNY/2024 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that the AO levied penalty @ 0.5% of the total turnover of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.271B of the Act, for non-furnishing of audit report u/s.44AB of the Act. On appeal, CIT(A) has dismissed appeal in limine without condoning delay of 670 days in filing appeal before him. The Ld.AR submitted reasons for belated filing of appeal, which has been extracted at para 2 of the impugned order of the CIT(A). The reasons stated for belated filing of appeal before CIT(A) was that due to extreme financial difficulties in the business of the assessee, including seizure of lorries by lenders, hence the delay. It was submitted that CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to explain the reasons for delay in filing appeal before him. It was stated that assessee had to face multiple litigation from various creditors and due to mental agony he was unable to file the appeal on time. The Ld.AR placed on record the details of multiple cases filed against the assessee. The Ld.AR pleaded assessee may be - 3 - ITA No. 3185/CHNY/2024 provided with one more opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The Ld.DR supported orders of the AO and CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The AO has passed ex-parte assessment order on best judgement basis and further levied penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.271B of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has not passed order on merits and has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning delay of 670 days in filing the appeal before him. The reasons stated for belated filing of appeal before CIT(A) was due to extreme financial difficulties, the business of the assessee has come to grinding halt, including seizure of lorries by lenders. It is submitted that assessee was facing multiple cases / complaints / plaint / arbitration / notice before various judicial forums i.e., Judicial Magistrate, Sankari, Principal Sub-Court Tiruchengode, Principal District Judge, Salem, Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode etc. (As placed in the paper book filed by the assessee). It is claimed by Ld.AR that assessee was unable to produce details/evidences in support of reasons for belated filing of appeal before the CIT(A) since assessee was suffering from multiple - 4 - ITA No. 3185/CHNY/2024 cases and acute financial constraints. The Ld.AR has now produced necessary evidences/ documents in support of the claim of assessee in the paper book filed before us. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we deem it appropriate to restore the case back to the files of CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation application afresh along with evidences / documents filed before us. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th February, 2025. 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 26th February, 2025 DS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai/Salem 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "