T. KETTIMUTHU,ERODE V. .ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

ITA 2783/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves T. Kettimuthu, the appellant, who was assessed for unexplained investments amounting to Rs. 10,58,332 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-filing of the Return of Income despite the appellant's involvement in the sale of immovable property worth Rs. 66,89,300. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte on merits. The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's advanced age and health issues, admitted the appeal, and emphasized the principles of natural justice, granting another opportunity for the appellant to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29385 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. ASWATHY; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUPENDRAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं माननीय ŵी अिमताभ शुƑा . लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2783/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2011-2012) T. Kettimuthu, Kulla Goundanvalasu Avalpoondurai (PO) Erode 638 115. [PAN: BRTPK 6998Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Bhupendran, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted delay of 185 days in filing the appeal. Considering the super senior age of the assessee (83 yrs old), medical certificate and reasons stated in the affidavit of the Assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 ITA No.2783 /Chny/2024 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed from the AIR information that the appellant had sold along with others an immovable property amounting to Rs. 66,89,300/- but the appellant had not filed his Return of Income, Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) was issued on 26.03.2018 and the same was duly served on the appellant on 28.03.2018. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the appellant on 07.07.2018. Further show cause notices issued and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act served on the appellant on various dates. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 10,58,332/- on the grounds of unexplained investments. Being aggrieved with the above, the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee challenged the order of assessment u/s 144 of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who proceeded ex-parte and dismissed the appeal on merits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee has inadvertently not received the notices issued by the AO and the ld.CIT(A) hence, asessee failed to avail opportunity to file evidence and documents to substantiate his explanation regarding deposits. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) 3 ITA No.2783 /Chny/2024 despite notices. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment. The Ld.AO shall proceed for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence, confirmations and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law. We make it clear that all the issues are kept open before the ld.AO. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of December,2024 at Chennai Sd/- Sd/- (अिमताभ शुƑा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated : 23-12-2024 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "