SEERALAN RAVI,CHENNAI V. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

ITA 1379/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Mr. Seeralan Ravi against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The appeals were filed after a delay of 156 days, which the assessee attributed to his engagement in a laborious business and a dispute over property that prevented him from obtaining necessary documents. The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting reasonable cause. The main contention was that both the initial assessment and the subsequent appeal were conducted ex parte without proper notice to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO and the CIT(A) had not adequately heard the assessee before passing their respective orders, leading to the decision to set aside these orders and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 106964 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P. KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH SAMDARIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद\f क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1379 & 1380/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mr. Seeralan Ravi, 7/3, II Floor, Subbarayan Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. v. The ACIT, NCC-10(1), Chennai. [PAN: AFSPR 7156 P] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Rajesh Samdaria, FCA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short \"the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, both dated 06.11.2023 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of ‘156’ days in filing of this appeal and assessee has filed condonation petition stating that he is Proprietor of M/s shell credit management services, which is ITA Nos.1379 & 1380/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Seeralan Ravi :: 2 :: primarily engaged as a collection agent of SBI cards HDFC and payment services limited. And the nature of work involves dealing with various staff wherein there are 650 employees, collection personals dealing with statutory authorities etc. which is quite laborious task and not so organized business and also due to dispute between common purchasers for property, he could not get hold of the copy of sale deed required for the purpose of filing the appeal to tribunal due to which he had been lacking on the compliance part before the Income Tax department. Therefore, appeal could not be filed. Having perused the affidavit, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for delay. So, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. According to the Ld.AR, even Assessment Order was passed on 26.12.2018 without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee by passing best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’) (ex parte). According to the assessee, the AO issued only one notice i.e. on 03.12.2018 u/s.143(2) of the Act, which the assessee didn’t receive. Thereafter, the AO didn’t issue any notice and passed the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act on 26.12.2018 for both AY’s. The assessee pleads for one more opportunity ITA Nos.1379 & 1380/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Seeralan Ravi :: 3 :: before AO on the ground that he didn’t get proper opportunity before AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). We note that Ld CIT(A) has passed an exparte order, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised by assessee. Be that as it may. We also note that AO has passed an exparte order/ best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act, without hearing the assessee. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessments back to the file of the AO with a direction to frame assessments de novo after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to file written submissions and relevant documents to substantiate its claim and the AO to frame assessments for both AY’s after hearing the assessee. 4. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 14th day of November, 2024, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद\f/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\tई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 14th November, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS ITA Nos.1379 & 1380/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Seeralan Ravi :: 4 :: आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "