TR Pachamuthu v. Asstt. CIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT & Anr. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0760 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1027 (Chen-Trib) IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & MANJUNATHA.G, A.M. TR Pachamuthu v. Asstt. CIT ITA No. 231/CHNY/2023 23 February, 2024 Appellant by: D. Anand, Advocate Respondent by: Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT ORDER *Mahavir Singh, V.P.* This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai in ITA No.10213/2009-10 dated 21-11-2022. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I(3), Chennai for the assessment year 1998-1999 under section 143(3) read with section 263 read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), vide order dated 31-12-2009. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 14 days and assessee had filed condonation petition stating that he was travelling officially as a Member of Parliament and hence could not sign the papers and this smaller delay has occurred. When this was confronted to learned Departmental Representative he could not controvert the above. Going by the reasons stated in the condonation petition as well as short delay of 14 days, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The First issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,50,10,000 declared by assessee under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (in short VDIS, 1997) as income for the period relevant to assessment year 1998-99. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, director and founder of SRM Group of Companies was engaged in multiple businesses like education, media and transport business. He was also founder member of a political party named Indiya Jananayaka Katchi and also a Member of Parliament. The assessee filed his return of income on 29-10-2001 admitting income from house property, profession of running a tutorial institute and agricultural income. The return was not acted upon as it was filed beyond the time limit. Later, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and assessee has filed a letter to treat the return filed on 29-10-2001 as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 25-4-2003. Later the original assessment was revised under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act dated 30-3-2006, the Assessing Officer considered the amount of Rs. 1,50,10,000 offered under VDIS 1997 as the undisclosed income for the assessment year 1998-99 and further the amount of tax paid under VDIS 97 for Rs. 47,73,185 on 31-3-1998 was not given credit to. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1027 (Chen-Trib)

IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH

MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & MANJUNATHA.G, A.M.

TR Pachamuthu v. Asstt. CIT

ITA No. 231/CHNY/2023

23 February, 2024

Appellant by: D. Anand, Advocate

Respondent by: Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

ORDER

Mahavir Singh, V.P.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai in ITA No.10213/2009-10 dated 21-11-2022. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I(3), Chennai for the assessment year 1998-1999 under section 143(3) read with section 263 read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), vide order dated 31-12-2009.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 14 days and assessee had filed condonation petition stating that he was travelling officially as a Member of Parliament and hence could not sign the papers and this smaller delay has occurred. When this was confronted to learned Departmental Representative he could not controvert the above. Going by the reasons stated in the condonation petition as well as short delay of 14 days, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3. The First issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,50,10,000 declared by assessee under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (in short VDIS, 1997) as income for the period relevant to assessment year 1998-99.

4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, director and founder of SRM Group of Companies was engaged in multiple businesses like education, media and transport business. He was also founder member of a political party named Indiya Jananayaka Katchi and also a Member of Parliament. The assessee filed his return of income on 29-10-2001 admitting income from house property, profession of running a tutorial institute and agricultural income. The return was not acted upon as it was filed beyond the time limit. Later, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and assessee has filed a letter to treat the return filed on 29-10-2001 as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 25-4-2003. Later the original assessment was revised under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act dated 30-3-2006, the Assessing Officer considered the amount of Rs. 1,50,10,000 offered under VDIS 1997 as the undisclosed income for the assessment year 1998-99 and further the amount of tax paid under VDIS 97 for Rs. 47,73,185 on 31-3-1998 was not given credit to. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).