Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-I, Chennai-34 v. Shri.k.s.thirumalaivasanl/R Of T.gokula Krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.3.2016 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN TAX CASE APPEAL NOS.107 & 108 OF 2016 AND CMP.NO.1934 OF 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-I, Chennai-34....Appellant/Respondent Vs Shri.K.S.ThirumalaivasanL/R of T.Gokula Krishna...Respondent/Appellant APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 29.7.2015 made in I.T.A.Nos.582 &583/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10 preferredagainst the order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VChennai dated 26.12.13 in I.T.A No.7/12-13(A.V andI.T.A.No.31/12-13(A)-V preferred against the assessment order ofthe Assistant commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle V,Chennai 34 dated 25.6.2012 and 29.12.2011 respectively for theAssessment year 2009-2010. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar These two appeals are filed by the Revenue, challenging theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, condoning the delayin filing the appeals and remitting the matter back to theAssessing Officer. 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel forthe appellant/Revenue. 3. The assessee was the proprietor of a concern engaged inthe business of trading and installation of electrical items. Hefiled a return of income on 3.12.2009 for the assessment year https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2009-10. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment andnotices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to verifythe genuineness of sundry creditors and the claim of higherrates of depreciation and to produce relevant documents. 4. The Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.3.99 croresas additional income, which was offered by the assessee himselfto purchase peace. The Assessing Officer also found that anamount of Rs.11,46,457/- towards sales tax payable by theassessee was not paid before the filing of the return of income.Hence, the same was also added. 5. Eventually, by the order of assessment dated 29.12.2011passed under Section 143(3), a tax demand of more than Rs.2crores was made. Separate proceedings for imposition of penaltyunder Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 6. The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 115 days.However, he did not appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)passed an ex parte order dated 26.12.2013 confirming theadditions. 7. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer also passed anorder dated 25.6.2012, levying minimum penalty. Aggrieved by theorder of penalty, a fresh appeal was filed before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). That was also dismissed exparte on 26.12.2013 along with the other appeal. As against thetwo orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on26.12.2013, one on quantum and another on penalty, the assesseefiled two appeals with a delay of 392 days before the Tribunal.The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowed the appeals andremitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer on the groundthat sufficient opportunity was not given. It is against thesaid orders that the Department has come up with the above twoappeals. 8. The fact remains that the assessee met with an accidenton 30.11.2014, suffered a head injury and has become bedridden.This fact is not denied by the Department. This is the reasonwhy the appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)could not also be prosecuted effectively. All that the Tribunalhas done is to take a sympathetic view of the fact that theassessee met with a road traffic accident, suffered a headinjury and is bedridden. It is the assessee's own son, who isnow prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, we find no substantialquestion of law to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. 8. The fact remains that the assessee met with an accidenton 30.11.2014, suffered a head injury and has become bedridden.This fact is not denied by the Department. This is the reasonwhy the appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)could not also be prosecuted effectively. All that the Tribunalhas done is to take a sympathetic view of the fact that theassessee met with a road traffic accident, suffered a headinjury and is bedridden. It is the assessee's own son, who isnow prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, we find no substantialquestion of law to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, the above tax case appeals are dismissed.Consequently, the above CMP is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Chennai.3.The Assistant commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle V, Chennai-34.4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Chennai.+1cc to M/S.T.R.SenthilKumar, Advocate sr.14384 TCA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2016and CMP.No.1934 of 2016rsi(CO)srg(18/03/2016)