S. KALPANA,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2902/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves S. Kalpana, the appellant, who did not file her income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 as required under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer, noticing substantial cash deposits and commodity transactions amounting to Rs.831,05,03,555, made an addition of the same under Section 69A of the Act due to non-response from the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 817 days in filing, without considering the merits. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the appellant's undertaking to cooperate with the assessment process, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29310 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M. RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P. RANGA RAMANUJAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 139(1); 69A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं माननीय ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2902/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) S. Kalpana, No.108, Block II, KKD Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai 600 118. [PAN: BJZPK 2361P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, NCW 5(1) Chennai. (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujan and Shri. K.R. Ganesh, C.As. Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shri M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068825287 (1) dated 19.09.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 5(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2013-14 u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 29.09.2021. 2 ITA No.2902/Chny/2024 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual as per the information received from AIMS under NMS Priority-PZ category, the assessee has not filed her return of income as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited cash deposits and commodity transactions totalling to the extent of Rs.831,05,03,555/-. Several notices were issued to the assessee, however the assessee did not responded to the same and hence the Ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.831,05,03,555/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 817 days in filing appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that there was a delay of only 222 days not 817 as stated by the ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that assessee has inadvertently not received the notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer and hence, asessee failed to avail opportunity to file evidence and documents to substantiate her explanation regarding cash deposits and commodity transactions. The ld. Departmental Representative stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the ld. Assessing Officer and hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before the ld. 3 ITA No.2902/Chny/2024 Assessing Officer to prosecute her case. The ld.AR for the assessee also filed the below mentioned undertaking as under: LETTER OF UNDERTAKING VAKALAT I do hereby that Mrs.S.KALPANA W/o. Subramani (PAN No.BJZPK2361P) Appellant's case in ITA.No.2902/CHNY/2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 came up for hearing today. On the direction of Bench, we A.SATHIYA PRAKASH, R.ASHOK KUMAR, Μ.ΑΒΙ to appear before the INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (ID) AO and to furnish all the details and documents require for the purpose of assessment and to cooperate with for the completion of the assessment before the Income Tax Department. We hereby undertake to represent in the above mentioned case. 1. ALSATHIYA PRAKASH (167/2012) 2. RASHOK KUMAR (995/2023) 3. M.ABI (1376/2024) Sincerely A. SATHIYA PRAKASH Therefore, in the light of above undertaking we set aside this appeal to the file of ld. Assessing Offi8cer to hear the appeal afresh after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal as per law. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of January, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :28-01-2025 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "