MANYAROUL MANYRAMASAMY,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, NCW-15(1), PUDUCHERRY

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. The Return of Income was filed on 21.08.2019 disclosing total income of Rs.29,52,290/-. Against the said Return of Income, no scrutiny assessment was made.

Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant had sold immovable property for consideration of Rs.1,37,00,000/- during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 29.06.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148, the appellant filed Return of Income on 27.03.2023. Against the said Return of Income, the assessment was completed by e-Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.7,52,41,176/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,00951,886/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account maintained with Axis Bank. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.1,36,55,000/- u/s.68 of the Act being the credits found in the bank account as unexplained credits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.76,82,000/- as short term capital gains.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for the failure of the appellant to furnish any documentary evidence in support the grounds of appeal.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A) without considering the submissions made before him had simply confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that from the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) that the appellant challenged all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant challenged the addition made on account of cash deposit in the bank account on the ground that the cash deposit in the bank account are earlier withdrawals from the bank account and no addition is called-for. The appellant also filed copy of the bank statement. Similarly, the appellant challenged the addition of capital gains by submitting that the appellant only acted as an agent of power of attorney holder and gains arising on sale of property are only taxable in the hands of the real owners of the property. Similarly, the appellant submitted that the credits in the bank account represents proceeds for repayment of loan from Arul Inn Pvt. Ltd, and sale proceeds of shares held in Arul Inn Pvt. Ltd. However, the ld.CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic order without discussing grounds of appeal and the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant company. Thus, the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) does not meet the requirements of a reasoned order, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo disposal of appeal in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th June, 2026.