Case Law Details
Late Shri Nemichand Gunavanthraj Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
We noted that the assessee has moved this petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and filed additional evidences i.e., confirmation letters from relatives, copies of Income-tax returns, copies of financial statements, copies of wealth tax returns of the relatives to prove the creditworthiness of the gifts received from relatives and members of HUF. The evidences could not be gathered as claimed by assessee that assessee who was managing the affairs died before the completion of assessment and these were collected by the legal heirs after lot of persuasion and by that time, order of CIT(A) was also passed. The ld.AR before us only made mercy petition that these evidences be admitted as assessee passed away before assessment proceedings and these evidences could not be gathered as the assessee’s legal heirs were not aware about the details. We are taking a sympathetic view in this case and admit these additional evidences for the reason that the assessee died and the legal heirs could not collect the evidences. But in any case, now ld.AR for the assessee stated that he is ready to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. In view of the above submissions and the fact that the assessee died before the assessment proceedings and the evidences could not be collected, we admit these evidences and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Chennai in ITA No. 132/CIT(A)-7/2018-19, order dated 25.09.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tiruvallur for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 24.12.2018.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
