SAYINATH VINITHA,COIMBATORE V. ITO, NCW-4(1), COIMBATORE

ITA 2141/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sayinath Vinitha against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained investments and interest thereon for the assessment year 2019-20. The AO had initially made these additions under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, citing unexplained investments amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs and interest of Rs. 61,991. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given proper opportunities to present his case at both the assessment and appellate stages, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29903 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: SRICHARAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी एस एस िव᳡नेᮢ रिव, ᭠याियक सद᭭य एवं ᮰ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2141/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sayinath Vinitha, No.1/2, Tts Street, Dhaliyur (Post), Thondamuthur, Coimbatore – 641 109. [PAN: AHNPV-1201-G] v. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward – 4(1), Coimbatore. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. Sricharan, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ 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. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.05.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2019-20. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which no petition for :-2-: ITA. No: 2141/Chny/2024 condonation of delay has been filed. In the interests of justice and considering the short delay, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the ld.AR took us through the assessment order, wherein the AO passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B on 20.02.2024, by making an addition of Rs.25 lakhs as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act along with an amount of Rs.61,991/- towards interest received on such investment. The ld.AR further took us through Para 2 of the assessment order, where the AO had given opportunities to the assessee by issuing notices from 12.07.2023 to 03.01.2024 where the assessee has neither filed the return of income in response to the notices nor filed any details/explanations. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. During the appellate proceedings, two notices were issued on 02.05.2024 and 09.05.2024 to the assessee and passed an order by confirming the additions made by the AO on 17.05.2024 without providing proper opportunities to the assessee. The ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order to the :-3-: ITA. No: 2141/Chny/2024 AO for denovo assessment and undertake to furnish all the details and documents during the proceedings. 4. Per contra, the ld.DR argued that the assessee was negligent and had not even filed a return of income even after issuing notices. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that proper opportunities has not been given before the AO and the order has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Since, exparte order has been passed by the AO we deem it fit to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order 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. :-4-: ITA. No: 2141/Chny/2024 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 23rd October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (एस एस िवʷनेũ रिव) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 23rd October, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT – Coimbatore 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "