Mr. C. Jegaveerapandian Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
The A.O has passed the assessment order on 25.03.2004. When the A.O has issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee only filed income-tax return in respect of three Assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997- 98 for remaining five years i.e., 1998-99 to 2002-03 he has chosen not to file a return. The assessee along with Chartered Accountant appeared before the A.O on 19.03.2003, 18.10.2004, 26.02.2004 in respect of three Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98. The remaining five Assessment Years, the assessee has not responded, ultimately the A.O has passed assessment orders on 25.03.2004. From the above, it is clear that the assessee knows that there are proceedings pending before the A.O for which he has appeared already along with his C.A and also other assessment years pending before the A.O. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee knowingly not to choose file an appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A). Apart from that the assessee filed an affidavit before the ITAT, wherein he has stated in paragraph-I that he is away from family since 11.07.2001, which is factually not correct because the assessee has appeared before the A.O on 19.03.2003, 18.10.2004, 26.02.2004 therefore, the plea of the assessee that he is away from the family cannot be accepted. Further, as per the remand report submitted by the A.O that the assessee suffering from sugar, joint pain since 20.01.2002 for that he is taking treatment from Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS and the assessee is visiting the hospital for the period from 20.01.2002 to 28.08.2010 as an outpatient. From the above, it is clear that his state of mind is perfect and he is taking treatment for his ill-health therefore, he must also aware that there was an assessment order and appeal also to be filed. After careful reading of the remand report and also detailed order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee was away from the family for 10 years is not believable. For the condonation of the delay, the assessee has to show that there must be a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In this case, the assessee himself decided as per his affidavit not to go to his house knowingly that there must be an assessment order. No one is prevented the assessee to go to his house therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause to condone delay. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
These eight appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai in ITA Nos. 182 to 189/2015-16 dated 03.07.2019 relevant to the Assessment Years 1995-1996 to 2002-2003 respectively.
2. In all these appeals the issue is common i.e., whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not condoning the delay in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble ITAT.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as “the Act”) was conducted in the business premises of M/s. JVP Associates and other sister concerns on 11.07.2001. During the course of survey, some documents evidencing business transactions of the assessee were found. Based on the documents found in the survey, the A.O has reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act and after following the due procedure, an assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r/w. s. 147 of the Act for the Assessment Years 1999-96 to 1997-98 and s. 144 r/w s. 147 of the Act for the Assessment Years 1998-99 to 2002-03. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed an appeal on 21.09.2012 before the CIT(A) along with the delay condonation petition for 8 1/2 years.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by rejecting the delay condonation petition filed by him vide order dated 12.2013.
5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble ITAT ‘A’ Bench, Chennai in ITA Nos. 343, 2904, 2905, 2906, 2907, 2908, 2909 & 2910/Mds/2014 dated 18.03.2015 has set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 19.12.2013 and remitted the issue of delay condonation to the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18.03.2015.
6. In compliance with the directions by the Hon’ble ITAT, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O to conduct an enquiry regarding averments made by the assessee in his affidavit and called the remand report. The A.O after conducting an enquiry submitted a remand report dated 17.05.2017 to Ld. CIT(A), the same remand report is extracted by Ld. CIT(A) as under:
“As directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Madurai, a summon u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS who appeared before the undersigned and a sworn statement was taken.
In his sworn statement, Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS stated that the assessee was suffering from High Blood pressure. Sugar and Joint pain since 20.0 1.2002 and he was taking ayurvedic treatment at Government Hospital Tuticorin as a outpatient.
Further, Dr. Muralidharan BAMS., has stated that the assessee visited his clinic several times for ayurvedic treatment from 20.0 1,2002 to 28.08.2010 as outpatient (Copy of sworn statement recorded from Dr. Muralidharan BAMS submitted). In support of his statement Dr. Murafidharan BAMS., has submitted a copy of OP register extract and a copy of prescription for having taken treatment by Shri C. Jegaveerapandian (Copy submitted).
Regarding the assessee’s stay in an isolated place for the past 10 years, this office inspector was deputed to enquire about the genuineness of the claim. On meeting the assessee in person the assessee has stated that he was away in mental depression due to the financial crisis and stayed away from his family at different addresses. However, when assessee was asked to file evidence for staying at different isolated places for so many years he could not produce any evidence. (Copy of ITI submitted)
When asked about the receipt of assessment orders, the assessee stated that the assessment orders were received by his family members.
On verifying the office records, it is noticed that the assessment orders of Shri C. Jegaveerapandian were received by his son Shri Saravanan.
As far as the date of notices issued by TRO, in respect of the assessee is concerned the iTCP- 1 was issued to the assessee on 09-3-2016.
The assessee has filed a letter dated, 05-4-2017 stating that he had gone out of his family and business and had led an isolated life outside due to his mental depression and financial crisis. He stated that he was suffering from Blood Pressure, Chronic diabetics for which he was taking ayurvedic treatment at Govt. Hospital, Tuticoirn. Further vide letter dated, 17-5-2017 he stated that
he was living at the houses of his friends and relatives at Tirupur and Alwartirunagari during the period under treatment for the period from 26-01- 2002 to 28-10-2010.”
7. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the remand report given by the A.O and passed the detailed order and also rejected the condonation of delay, which reads as under:
“The assessment orders for all the eight years from assessment year 1995-96 to 2002-03 were ptrused. The details regarding filing of return, appearance of the appellant and the authorised representative, issue of notices u/s 148/142(1)/143(2), the date of orders and the total income assessed etc., for sake of clarity are given in the following table:
