Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
R. Munusamy, Kalpakkam vs Ito, Non Corporate Circle 5(5), Chennai on 4 December, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, B/'SMC' यायपीठ, चे नई ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
B/"SMC" BENCH, CHENNAI
ी. चं पज
ू ार लेखा सद य , के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A.No.2171/Mds./2017
( Assessment Year : 2013-14 )
Shri R.Munusamy, The Income Tax officer,
No.382,Mettu street, Ayapakkam Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 5(5),
village(Post), Chennai-6.
Kalpakkam 603 102.
PAN AUPPM 5917 N
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Mr.P.Ranga Ramanujam, C.A.
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
सन
ु वाई क तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 20.11.2017
घोषणा क तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2017
आदे श / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-5, Chennai dated 27.06.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
2 ITA No. 2171/Mds/20172. The assessee raised the following grounds for consideration.
1. The Order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and weight of evidence.
2. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in not granting the condonation for short delay of 9 days occurred in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals), by dismissing the application as barred by limitation. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has thereby falled to follow the principles of natural justice in deciding the appeal.
3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in not addressing the merits of the high pitched Assessment order made wholly on the basis of the oral statements taken from the poor, illiterate and ignorant appellant who was not represented by any counsel.
4. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,87,848/- made by the Assessing officer under Unexplained investments when the entries in the books of account produced and the statement recorded from the appellant themselves confirm the additional construction and investment in lands recorded in the books of accounts and statements furnished before the A.O, without considering the merits of the case.
3. The ld.A.R submitted that there was a short delay of 9 days occurred in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals), that was not condoned by Ld.CIT(A) on reason that assessee had not explained 3 ITA No. 2171/Mds/2017 the delay properly byway of affidavit. Before us, the ld.A.R filed an affidavit from the assessee stating as follows:-
"2) That I preferred an appeal to the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals -5), Chennai -- 600 034 against the Assessing officer's Assessment order u/s. 143(3) rws 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 dt. 30/03/2016 for the AY 2013 --2014.
3) That I received the said Assessment order from the Assessing officer on 01/04/2016.
4) That I am mainly an agriculturist cultivating Paddy and Coconut in the agriculture lands me about 13 Acres inherited from grandmother by our family, situated at Ayapakkam Village, Kanchipuram Dist - 603 102. I am also deriving rental income and commission from nearby lands broking.
5) That I have not filed the Return of income till the receipt of Notices from the Income tax department in the year 2015.
Hence I engaged for the first time M/s. A. John Moris & Co., Chartered accountants to represent myself before the income tax authorities for the assessment proceedings. But during the middle of the assessment proceedings they withdrew from the engagement and I only appeared before the Assessing officer till the assessment orders are passed.
6. After a reference through a friend I engaged the auditors, M/s. Padmanabhan Ramani & Ramanajum, Chartered Accountants to file the appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (appeals). As they were also busy and was out of station for the Indian bank statutory audit assignments during the month of April, the appeal papers could be drafted and filed after a while on 9th May 2016."
Accordingly, ld.A.R pleaded before us that the short delay of 9 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has been caused due to the time taken for appointing an Authorised Representative of assessee and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within thestipulated time.
4 ITA No. 2171/Mds/20174. On the other hand, ld.D.R relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) stating that before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has not explained the reasons by way of proper evidence in the form of affidavit.
5. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In my opinion, there was a short delay of 9 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It was explained before the Ld.CIT(A) byway of condonation petition without accompanying the same by an affidavit. Before this Bench, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 15.11.2017 stating the same reasons mentioned in the condonation petition submitted before the Ld.CIT(A). In my opinion, there exists reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A).
Accordingly, I direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the short delay of 09 days in filing this appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
6. At this stage, I refrain from going into other issues raised in this appeal on merit, since the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated this caseon merit. Accordingly, the entire issue raised in the appeal of assessee 5 ITA No. 2171/Mds/2017 is remitted to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 04th December, 2017.
Sd/-
(चं पज ू ार ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) लेखा सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated the 04th December, 2017.
K s sundaram.
आदे श क )त*ल+प अ,े+षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 3. आयकर आय-
ु त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. +वभागीय )त)न2ध/DR
2. यथ /Respondent 4. आयकर आयु-त/CIT 6. गाड5 फाईल/GF