RAJA USHARANI,CHENNAI vs. THE ITO, CW 10(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 391/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 September 2022AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the deposits, and an adequate opportunity of hearing was to be granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits in bank accounts, including during the demonetized period. The Assessing Officer made additions based on best judgment assessment due to the assessee's failure to explain the source of these deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash deposits and unexplained credit in the bank account was justified without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to substantiate the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C/SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: 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 17-08-2021 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 of the Act on 12-11-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is addition of cash deposit and unexplained credit in bank account for Rs.39.01 Lacs.

2.

The registry has noted a delay of 02 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR. Considering the 2 - period of delay, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

The Ld. AR, at the outset, sought fresh opportunity of hearing since the assessment has been framed on best judgment basis u/s 144. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

4.

I find that the assessee was saddled with impugned addition since the assessee made cash deposits in certain bank accounts. The assessee failed to explain the source thereof during assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings. The cash deposit during demonetized period for Rs.33.68 Lacs was fully added whereas other cash was deemed to be the turnover of the assessee which was assessed @8%. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

5.

Accepting the plea of Ld. AR, I restore the issue back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo adjudication with a direction to assessee to substantiate the source of deposit. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.

6.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st September, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →