SIVAJI ,RAMNAD V. ITO, WARD-2, RAMNAD

ITA 399/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Sivaji, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s decision, which the assessee argued was due to inadequate guidance from his accountant, leading to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the assessee's reliance on his accountant, and condoned this delay. The core issue revolved around the application of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to the taxation of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's challenge to the application of this section and remitted the matter back for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312086 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: R. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM
• Keywords: Set aside; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 154; 68

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज क े, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.399/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sivaji, No.5/199, Sowkat Ali Street, Paramakudi, Ramnad, Tamil Nadu-623 707. [PAN: ACYPS0525L] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ramnad, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri R.Meenakshisundaram, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1059613400(1) dated 11.01.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 393 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a small time middleman in trading of Chilly and that he was totally relying upon his accountant for tax compliances, ITA No.399/Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 4 who could not make timely compliances. The appellate is a semi-literate and not conversant with the complicated tax matters. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It has been stated that the accountant could not guide him properly leading to the deficient compliances. The Ld. Counsel therefore requested that the matter be remitted back for readjudication. 4.0 The Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the Ld.AO had passed order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2019 making addition u/s 68 of the act of Rs.14,50,000/- as unexplained cash deposit made during the demonetization period. The Ld. AO had also invoked provisions of section 115BBE of the act. The assessee proceeded to make a petition u/s 154 of the act dated ITA No.399/Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 4 29.01.2020. The assessee had in principle contested the levy of tax at 60% u/s 115BBE. The same was rejected by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the Ld.AO’s order, assessee agitated the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted in para 5.3 of his order that no mistake was evident in the order u/s 154 passed by the Ld.AO. It was also concluded that no change of opinion is permissible under 154. We find sufficient force in the argument of the Ld.First Appellate Authority that, the Ld. AO do not possess any power of review u/s 154. We have also noted that in para 4 of his order Ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not responded to the statutory notices and thus has not submitted any arguments. A case of adjudication being done ex-parte is therefore clearly made out. We have noted from the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was fiercely contesting, through its grounds of appeal, the levy of tax rates at 60% qua provisions of section 115BBE. We have also noted that the order of Ld.CIT(A) is not abundantly clear as far as adjudication of these grounds of appeal are concerned. He has merely proceeded on the premise that substantive additions cannot be revisited in 154. The fact of the matter however remains that challenge to application of provisions of section 115BBE in assessee’s case has not been appropriately dealt by the Ld.CIT(A). Be that as it may be we are of the considered that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the Ld.CIT(A) for readjudication. Accordingly, ITA No.399/Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 4 we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the matter after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by way of a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with all the statutory notices and any non-compliance by the assessee would be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 2nd , May -2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाध्यक्ष / vice president Sd/- (अधिताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 2nd , May -2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Madurai 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF "