Palaniappan Manonmani Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
The ITAT Chennai considered the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Tribunal first condoned a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation that, being a senior citizen with limited knowledge of the digital environment, coupled with medical ailments requiring treatment and bed rest, she could not attend to the income-tax proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted promptly after becoming aware of the proceedings through calls regarding the outstanding tax demand.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment had been completed ex parte under the best judgment provisions read with Sections 147, 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹25,35,700 under Section 56(2)(x)(b) towards the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration of an immovable property and a further addition of ₹60,00,000 under Section 69 treating the investment as unexplained.
Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee produced additional evidence regarding the source of investment, resulting in the Section 69 issue being restored to the Assessing Officer. However, the First Appellate Authority declined to interfere with the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) on the ground that no request for reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) had been made before the Assessing Officer.
