M/S PREMIER ENTERPRISESS,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, PONDICHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 790/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 February 2023AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 135.30 Lacs made on account of cash deposits during the demonetized period. The assessee failed to provide documents to prove the source of these deposits before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to prove the source of cash deposits when they failed to do so before lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-05-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27-12-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.135.30 Lacs, being cash deposited during demonetized period. The Ld. AR, at the outset, drawing attention to the orders of lower authorities, pleaded - 2 - for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

The assessee has been saddled with impugned additions since the assessee could not furnish any documents to prove the source of cash deposit during demonetized period. Accordingly, the same was added to the income of the assessee. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, it remained non-compliant during appellate proceedings which led to confirmation of assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

After careful consideration of impugned order, we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR that the assessee has remained non- compliant. However, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee would be provided with reasonable opportunity of hearing. In the event of failure on the part of the assessee to make any submissions, Ld. CIT(A) shall proceed to adjudicate the issue on the basis of material on record.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th February, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →