KUPPUSAMY RAVICHANDRAN,SALEM vs. ITO,WARD-1(4), SALEM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present his case, considering his old age and failure to appear due to not noticing the e-mail notice.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 15,02,000/- in his savings bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer accepted Rs. 7,90,054/- as out of past savings but treated the remaining Rs. 7,11,946/- as unexplained income under Section 69A.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee is sustainable, and if the assessee should be given another chance to explain the cash deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI G.MANJUNATHA
: Mr. N.Arjunraj, C.A for अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate : Mr. N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by 14.09.2022 : सुनवाईक"तार ख/Date of hearing : 14 .09.2022 घोषणाक"तार ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against
order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.05.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 11.07.2017 admitting total income of Rs.3,85,880/-.
The case was selected for scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.15,02,000/- in his savings bank 2 account with Karur Vysya Bank account no. 1246155000092243. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain source for cash deposits, particularly, in light of deposits made during demonetization period. In response, the assessee submitted that cash deposits was out of past savings from his salary account. The Assessing Officer considered explanation furnished by the assessee and accepted deposits to the tune of Rs.7,90,054/- out of closing balance available as on 08.11.2016. However, in respect of balance amount of Rs.7,11,946/- deposited after 08.11.2016, same has been treated as unexplained money and brought to tax under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A).
The first appellate authority, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, issued various notices to the assessee as recorded in para 4.1 of the learned CIT(A) order. The assessee neither appeared nor sought any adjournment.
Therefore, the learned CIT(A) disposed off appeal filed by the assessee and sustained additions made by the Assessing 3 Officer towards cash deposits made in the bank account.
Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not appear before the first appellate authority, because notice issued by NFAC, Delhi was not noticed by the assessee through e-mail provided in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to go back to the first appellate authority to explain his case.
The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that appeal may be set aside to file of the learned CIT(A).
Having heard both the sides and considered relevant materials on record, I find that the assessee is an aged person could not notice, when the call letter was issued by the first appellate authority fixing case for hearing. Therefore, the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A) to explain his case. Therefore, keeping in view of his old age and also to 4 give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, I set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall appear before the first appellate authority without seeking any adjournment.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026