Chakrapani Nagarajan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) adjudicated an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.
Procedural Matters and Facts of the Case
The appeal was filed with a delay of 63 days. The assessee submitted an affidavit requesting condonation of the delay, citing the ill health of their son and other personal problems, as well as their Chartered Accountant’s travel, which led to a delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, finding the delay was not intentional or deliberate, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.
The case originated when the Assessing Officer (AO) noted, based on information flagged under the CBDT’s Risk Management Strategy, that the assessee had sold immovable property for ₹1,11,75,000/- and received contract payments of ₹8,18,640/- from M/s Estrat Logistics Private Limited during the A.Y. 2018-19. As the assessee had not filed a return of income, the case was reopened under Section 148A(d), followed by a notice under Section 148 of the Act on March 31, 2022. Despite receiving notices under Section 142(1), the assessee did not file a return of income but submitted only a partial reply, including a copy of the computation of capital gains, a purchase deed, and a construction agreement. Consequently, the AO computed the assessee’s income by taking the entire sale consideration of ₹1,11,75,000/- as capital gains and added a sum of ₹65,491/- under Section 44AD on the contract receipts. The CIT(A) later confirmed these additions, as the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence or substantial response during the first appellate proceedings.
