MRS. RANI DEIVANAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO,WARD-1(6), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 161/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 August 20235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee provided complete details nor the Assessing Officer verified the issue properly. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification of the assessee's claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 23,23,900/- during demonetization. The assessee claimed the source was opening cash in hand and advances refunded by debtors, but neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) were satisfied with the explanation or details provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization were justified, considering the assessee's explanation and the lack of proper verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A (SMC

Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE

Hearing: 31.07.2023Pronounced: 04.08.2023

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 18.01.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 18.01.2023 is opposed to the facts of the case and is not legally maintainable.

:-2-: ITA. No:161/Chny/2023 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO is not justified in assessing a sum of Rs.23,23,900/- as unexplained investment by invoking the provisions of sec.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Authority .

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant filed a detailed reply dated 26.11.2019 which has not been considered properly by the AO in the assessment order dated 13.12.2019, 4. In view of the above grounds and other submissions to be made at the time of Appeal hearing, the order of AO which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Authority may be cancelled and justice rendered.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.03.2018. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21.09.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 23.11.2019 was issued directing the assessee to file necessary evidences in support of source for cash deposits during demonetization period. In response, the assessee submitted certain details and explained that source for cash deposits is out of opening cash in hand and advances refunded

:-3-: ITA. No:161/Chny/2023 by the debtors. The Assessing Officer, did not satisfy with the explanation furnished by the assessee and accordingly rejected arguments and made additions towards cash deposits u/s. 69 of the Act.

4.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but neither appeared nor furnished any details, which is evident from Para 3 of CIT(A) order, where we find that the ld. CIT(A) had given four dates of hearing to the assessee, but there was no compliance. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), on the basis of material available on record, upheld additions made by the AO towards cash deposits during demonetization period. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts borne out from record indicate that, the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 23,23,900/-, to its bank account during demonetization period. The assessee neither explained source for cash deposits to the Assessing Officer nor filed any details before

:-4-: ITA. No:161/Chny/2023 the CIT(A) to justify source for cash deposits. The Assessing Officer, although made additions towards cash deposits, but did not consider the explanation of the assessee with regard to source for cash deposit. At the same time, the assessee had also could not file any bifurcation about the opening cash in hand and amount received from debtors. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that neither the assessee has furnished complete details about source for cash deposit nor the Assessing Officer has verified the issue in light of claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the issue needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for further verification with regard to the claim of the assessee to ascertain correct facts with regard to the quantum of cash deposit out of opening cash in hand and quantum of cash deposit out of amount received from sundry debtors. Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A), and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer and file necessary details to justify source for cash deposits.

:-5-: ITA. No:161/Chny/2023 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →