IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 09.03.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 R.Saroja Devi .. Appellant in all appeals Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-I[1], Thanjavur. .. Respondent in all appeals COMMON PRAYER:- Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, to reverse common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ''A'' SMC Bench, Chennai, dated 19.11.2018 made in ITA.Nos.1923/Chny/2018 ; 1924/Chny/2018 ; 1925/Chny/2018 ; and 1926/Chny/2018 and allow appeals. For Appellant in all Appeals : Mr.R.Karunakaran For Respondent in all Appeals : Mrs.S.Hemalatha for Mr.M.Swaminathan 1/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,] (1)By consent, both Tax Case Appeals are taken up together for final hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment. (2)The facts, briefly narrated and relevant for purpose of disposal of these appeals, are as follows:- 1. appellant/assessee was married to Thiru.A.K.Rajaraman, who was employed in Textile shop, in year 1976, at time of marriage. appellant/assessee claimed that she received nearly Rs.1,00,000/- of marriage presents from her relatives and friends and she in turn, entrusted same to her husband and utilizing same, her husband started manufacturing home made silk sarees by using his own looms. appellant/assessee filed her Returns of Income after survey in premises of her husband for first time in year 1995-96. Income Tax Officer added entire capital as ''unexplained'' for Assessment Years 1995-96. 2. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], granted part relief. appellant/assessee also suffered addition of some amounts for Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. appellant/assessee had filed four appeals with delay of 374 2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 days and she cited reason that she had undergone depression and mental agony caused by her son-in-law by inflicting torture upon her daughter and kid born out of marriage, was also brought by her and ultimately, marriage between her daughter and her son-in- law ended in divorce and that apart, her brother-in-law had also passed away, leaving his wife and two children in distress and appellant/assessee has to take care of them and therefore, delay had occurred. 3. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ''A'' SMC Bench, at Chennai, [in short ''the ITAT''] vide common order dated 19.11.2018, had dismissed all four appeals on ground that above cited reasons cannot be termed as justifiable. appellant/assessee, challenging legality of said common order, had filed present Tax Case Appeals and in Memorandum of Grounds of Appeals, appellant/assessee had raised following common substantial questions of law: 1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Hon'ble Tribunal had erred in dismissing Miscellaneous petition filed by appellant dismissing condone delay petition and appeal in ITA.Nos.1923/Chny/2018 ; 1924/Chny/2018 ; 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 1925/Chny/2018 and 1926/Chny/2018 for Assessment Years 1998-99 dated 19.11.2018 filed by Appellant against without application of mind and ignoring document available on record? 2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case whether Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in dismissing Appeal of Appellant when merits of same has not been tested in any of Appellate Forums below and same has been dismissed only on technical ground? (3)The learned counsel for appellant/assessee would submit that even without ordering notice to appellant/assessee prior to condonation of delay in filing four appeals, appeals came to be rejected in limini and in absence of any imposition as to stand taken by appellant/assessee, reasons cited for condonation of delay remain uncontroverted and in any event, ITAT ought to have condoned delay and taken up appeals on file and given disposal on merits. (4)Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Revenue would submit that no tenable material, whatsoever, has been produced by appellant/assessee in support of reasons for delay in filing appeals and as such, ITAT has rightly exercised its discretion 4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 and dismissed appeals for want of proper explanation and prays for dismissal of these Tax Case Appeals. (5)This Court has considered rival submissions and also perused materials placed before it. (6)A perusal of impugned common order dated 19.11.2018 passed by ITAT would disclose that no notice has been ordered to Revenue and appeals have been filed in pursuant to liberty granted by this Court to appellant/assessee while granting liberty to assessee to withdraw WP.No.7862/2019. appellant/assessee is home-maker and in considered opinion of Court, she had cited personal reasons and difficulties as to delay in approaching ITAT and in absence of notice to respondent/Revenue, reasons for delay remain uncontroverted. This Court is also of view that appellant/assessee has properly explained delay in filing appeals before ITAT. (7)In result, substantial questions of law are answered in affirmative and in favour of appellant/assessee. (8)The Tax Case Appeals are allowed and common order dated 19.11.2018 passed by ITAT in ITA.Nos.1923/Chny/2018 ; 1924/Chny/2018 ; 1925/Chny/2018 ; and 1926/Chny/2018 are set aside. 5/7 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 Consequently, delay of 374 days in filing appeals in above ITA cases, is hereby condoned. (9)If papers are otherwise in order, ITAT is directed to number appeals and give disposal as expeditiously as possible. [M.S.N.,J] [A.Q., J] 09.03.2020 AP Internet : Yes To Income Tax Officer Ward-I[1], Thanjavur. 6/7 TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J., AP TCA.Nos.125, 126, 134 & 135 of 2020 09.03.2020 7/7 R. Saroja Devi v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-I[1], Thanjavur