SENNIYAPPAN BALASUBRAMANIAN,THANJAVUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANJAVUR

ITA 2369/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Senniyappan Balasubramanian, an individual running an Indian Gas Agency, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The original assessment included significant additions under sections 68, 69, and 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and disallowance of bank interest claimed as expenditure. The assessee's appeal was initially delayed due to non-receipt of notices, which were sent to an inactive email account. The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the delay and admitted the appeal, ultimately deciding to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29917 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: V. ALAGAPPAN; BY VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ के, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2369/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Senniyappan Balasubramanian, 2835 Balopanandavanam, Town Police Station, Thanjavur – 613 008. [PAN: AFHPB-5272-M] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Thanjavur – 613 006. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. V. Alagappan, CA by virtual ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 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 26.09.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 289 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. The assessee :-2-: ITA. No: 2369/Chny/2024 stated that the notices sent were delivered only on the I.T. Portal & email Id of the auditor which was not used regularly by the assessee. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also 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 carrying on the business of Indian Gas Agency, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 18.01.2018, admitting a total income of Rs.4,39,580/- (+) agricultural income of Rs.9 lakhs. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 19.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.1,43,75,330/- u/s. 68 & 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, along with the disallowance of bank interest claimed as expenditure under the head business at Rs.10,15,243/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. :-3-: ITA. No: 2369/Chny/2024 4. The ld.CIT(A) passed an order dated 26.09.2023 without the participation of the assessee in appellate proceedings by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to the ground no. 2 raised before us and stated that the notices issued by the first appellate authority has been delivered to e-mail Id which was not accessed by the assessee and also stated that none of the notices were received by the assessee by post. Hence, the assessee was not aware of the notices and was unable to respond to the same, and prayed for remitting the file to the Assessing Officer for giving one more opportunity to furnish the entire details before the Assessing Officer, since additions made are under five issues. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR fairly accepted for remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) have just confirmed the Assessing Officer’s order without participation of the assessee in appellate proceedings. Since, the additions made requires verification of various documents and :-4-: ITA. No: 2369/Chny/2024 statement of accounts, 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 assessment 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. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 22nd November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 22nd November, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT - Madurai 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "