K.Loganathan vs Income Tax Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 15101 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15101 Mad
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2023

Madras High Court

K.Loganathan vs Income Tax Officer on 28 November, 2023

Author: R. Mahadevan

Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq

                                                                                     T.C.A.No.180 of 2022

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 28.11.2023

                                                            CORAM

                                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
                                                   and
                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

                                                       T.C.A.No.180 of 2022


                     K.Loganathan                                                          .. Appellant

                                                               Vs.


                     Income Tax Officer,
                     Business Ward IV(1),
                     Chennai – 600 034.                                                  .. Respondent


                                  Tax Appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

                     against the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in ITA.No.2280/Mds/2014 on the

                     file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai.


                                       For Appellant            : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami

                                       For Respondent           : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
                                                                  Standing Counsel



                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                                 T.C.A.No.180 of 2022



                                                          JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. Mahadevan, J.)

Challenging the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in ITA.No.2280/Mds/2014, the

appellant / assessee has filed the present tax case appeal, raising the

following substantial questions of law:

(i)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without going into the merits of the case?

(ii)Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in exercising the power given under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in dismissing the appeal in limine without appreciating the scope of the aforesaid provisions that the same should be disposed of on merits?

(iii)Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not in violation of the principles of natural justice when the Tribunal refused to grant adjournment sought by the appellant, for the only reason that the vakalath/ authorization was not on record?

2.According to the appellant, he is an individual in the business of

real estate mediation, receiving commission on facilitating transactions in

the immovable properties. When he submitted the Income Tax Returns for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer, after scrutiny of the

same, made some additions and raised a demand of Rs.11,83,250/-. On

appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the additions

made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed

an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the same

was dismissed for non-prosecution. Challenging the same, he has preferred

the present appeal.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the

Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution rather it

ought to have decided the appeal on merits, since the matter requires to be

decided only after hearing the arguments on the side of the appellant in a

detailed manner. The learned counsel further submitted that out of the

demand amount Rs.11,83,250/-, the Department has recovered a sum of

Rs.9,00,000/- from the appellant and this statement has been acceded to by

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having

regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, more

particularly, that out of the demanded amount, a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- has

already been recovered by the Department from the appellant, we are

inclined to remit the matter to the Tribunal for consideration. In such view

of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the

matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders, on merits, after

providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Such an exercise

shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. Accordingly, all the substantial questions of law

raised herein are left open.

5.The Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No

costs.

                                                                       (R.M.D., J.)     (M.S.Q., J.)
                                                                                   28.11.2023
                     Index : Yes / No
                     Speaking Order : Yes / No
                     Neutral Citation : Yes / No
                     nsd




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                     To

                     1.The Accountant Member,
                     Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
                     Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-VIII), Chennai.

3.The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward IV(1), Chennai – 600 034.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

nsd

28.11.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis