S.Ponnambalam v. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-I(1) Thanjavur
[Citation -2016-LL-1006-31]

Citation 2016-LL-1006-31
Appellant Name S.Ponnambalam
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer, Ward-I(1) Thanjavur
Court ITAT-Chennai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/10/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags opportunity of being heard • barred by limitation • agricultural income • business of trading • source of income • fresh evidence • other source
Bot Summary: The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 12 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay in filing the appeal by stating the 2 ITA No.1853/Mds/2014 appellant s representative M/s. KNR Associates, C.As was entrusted to file the appeal; however they failed to do so by oversight as they were relocating their office. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has raised several grounds in these appeals the cruxes of the issues are as follows:- i) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.87,50,500/- made by the learned Assessing Officer as unexplained investments. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the entire addition was due to the reason that the assessee did not submit sufficient evidence before the Revenue to establish that the bank deposits were arising from assessee s agricultural income though it is not disputed that the assessee owns about 45 acres of land in Tirunelveli District. Since the addition made in the hands of the assessee is of 4 ITA No.1853/Mds/2014 considerable amount and since the assessee does not have any other source of income other than agriculture income and a petty business of trading coffee powder and mint oil, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, thereby providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T. A. No. 1853 /Mds/2 014 ( / Assessm ent Year: 2009-10) Mr. S.Ponnambalam Vs Income Tax Officer, 3, Sunnambukkara Street, Ward-I(1) Pattukottai. Thanjavur. PAN: AEAPP5045A ( /Appellant) ( /Respondent) / Appellant by : Mr. K.Ravi, Advocate /Respondent by : Mr. A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT /Da t e of h e ar in g : 31st August,2016 /D at e of Pr on oun c em ent : 6th October, 2016 / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- This appeal is filed by assessee aggrieved by order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Tiruchirapalli dated 13.02.2016 in ITA No.389/2011- 12/CIT(A)/TRY passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 250(6) of Act. 2. appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation of 12 days. assessee filed affidavit explaining reason for delay in filing appeal by stating 2 ITA No.1853/Mds/2014 appellant s representative M/s. KNR Associates, C.As was entrusted to file appeal; however they failed to do so by oversight as they were relocating their office. It was therefore pleaded that delay was due to negligence of assessee s representative and assessee may not be penalized for same. Considering submissions of assessee, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal. Hence in interest of justice, we hereby condone delay in filing appeal and admit same for adjudication. 3. assessee has raised several grounds in these appeals, however, cruxes of issues are as follows:- i) learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.87,50,500/- made by learned Assessing Officer as unexplained investments. ii) learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.74,10,000/- made by learned Assessing Officer as unexplained investments. iii) learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.9,32,000/- made by learned Assessing Officer on estimate basis. 3 ITA No.1853/Mds/2014 4. At outset, learned Authorized Representative submitted that entire addition was due to reason that assessee did not submit sufficient evidence before Revenue to establish that bank deposits were arising from assessee s agricultural income though it is not disputed that assessee owns about 45 acres of land in Tirunelveli District. He further submitted that one more opportunity may be given to assessee so that he may be able to convince Assessing Officer regarding cultivation of mint saplings as well as extraction of oil from it. 5. learned Departmental Representative on other hand vehemently opposed to submissions of learned Authorized Representative. 6. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused materials available on record. From facts of case, it is apparent that assessee owns agricultural land and is engaged in agriculture activities as well as business of trading coffee powder and extraction of mint oil. Since addition made in hands of assessee is of 4 ITA No.1853/Mds/2014 considerable amount and since assessee does not have any other source of income other than agriculture income and petty business of trading coffee powder and mint oil, in interest of justice, we hereby remit matter back to file of learned Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, thereby providing one more opportunity of being heard to assessee. We also direct Revenue to admit any fresh evidence provided by assessee while reframing assessment and also caution assessee to promptly co- operative with Revenue in their proceedings, failing which Revenue shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per merit & law based on available materials on record. 7. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 6th October, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.Ganesan) ( A.Mohan Alankamony ) /Judicial Member / Accountant Member /Chennai, /Dated 6th October, 2016 somu /Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF S.Ponnambalam v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-I(1) Thanjavur
Report Error