PEER MOHAMED IBRAHIM,EAST AVANI MOOLA STREET, MADURAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP.WARD 2(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

ITA 699/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Peer Mohamed Ibrahim, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's failure to receive the order notice directly, as it was sent to an incorrect email. The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the delay and admitted the appeal. The primary issues in the case included the assessee's failure to comply with notices and provide substantive evidence, which led to the initial dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's participation in the first appellate proceedings and decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714304 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRYATI SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Gift; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज क े, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 699/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Peer Mohamed Ibrahim, No.90-92, East Avani Moola Street, Madurai – 625 001. vs. The Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward -2(1), Madurai. [PAN:AABPI-8936-N] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17, vide order dated 12.10.2023. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 452 day in appeal filed by the assessee, for which an explanation letter and affidavit dated 07.03.2025 was filed by the assessee. In the condonation petition, it is stated that the assessee had given email belonging to the assistant of the auditor and therefore the assessee had no occasion to read and consult the tax consultant.After becoming Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No.:699/Chny/2025 aware of the order, I reached to the other consultant and based on his advice I filed the present appeal. Hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal. After hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 31.12.2016 admitting a total income of Rs.11,09,060/-. The AO selected for limited scrutiny for verifying the cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee. The assessee is a partner in M/s. S. Ibrahim & Co., Madurai, a firm engaged in the business of trading in the household appliances and gift articles. The sources of income of the assessee are remuneration form the partnership firm, share of profit, bank interest and Roof space rent from a mobile network company for laying their tower. The AO after considering the details furnished by the assessee concluded the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 27.08.2018 by making the following additions to the returned income: 1. Cash deposit u/s.68 of the Act Rs.25,59,700/- 2. Interest income Rs. 1,570/- 3. Difference in valuation of the property U/s.56(2)(vii)(b) Rs.68,28,500/- 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay. 5. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee stating that considering the assessee’s repeated failure to comply with Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No.:699/Chny/2025 notices and provide substantive evidence and passed an order dated 12.10.2023. Further, the ld.CIT(A) also did not condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 7. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has not participated in the proceedings before the first appellate authority and hence prayed for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) and also prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest natural justice and assured the bench that if the opportunity is given, the assessee will participate in the proceedings. 8. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A). 9. We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order by considering the information available and based on the AO’s order without the participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. We note the assessee has not participated before the ld.CIT(A) and also filed the appeal with a delay. Since the assessee has failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA. No.:699/Chny/2025 10. In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh 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. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 05th August, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated, the 05th August, 2025 jk आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि/DR 5. गार्ज फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "