Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 84,25,000/- for cash deposits during the demonetization period under Section 69A, as supporting evidence was not provided. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had narrated facts of a different case and proceeded as if the assessment order was passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147, indicating a non-application of mind. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) applied proper application of mind in passing the appellate order, and if not, whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate its case.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 40A(3), 68, 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Chennai-20 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 30.07.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 29.12.2019.
:- 2 -:
The assessee filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year declaring a total income of Rs. 55,29,400/-. The A.O made an addition cash deposits of Rs.84,25,000/- into its bank account during the demonetization period, u/s. 69A of the Act, as the assessee had not furnished any supporting bills or vouchers to substantiate the claim that the cash deposits represented sale proceeds. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.
1. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A), after discussing facts pertaining to an entirely different case, set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment.
The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the addition in the present case relates to cash deposits of Rs.84,25,000/-, but the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed facts of some other case involving a disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/- u/s. 40A(3) and addition of Rs. 49,54,300/- u/s. 68 of the Act, and thereafter set aside an assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order without proper application of mind. The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the A.O.
:- 3 -:
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R.) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the A.O has made an addition of Rs.84,25,000/- towards cash deposits. However, the Ld. CIT(A), while disposing of the appeal, has narrated facts of a different case and proceeded as if the assessment order in the present case was one passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. It is therefore clear that the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from non-application of mind.
Since the addition was made by the A.O on account of the assessee’s failure to furnish the required details, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for de novo assessment in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with all notices issued by the A.O and furnish all relevant details for :- 4 -:
fresh adjudication. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.