INCOMETAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. EXODUS MARINE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1070217051(1) dated 08.11.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 132 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. It is the case of the Revenue that the delay had occurred on account of preoccupation with time barring works in the months of February and March of 2024 and consequently the timeline of January-2025 could not be complied with. Thereafter, the department got busy with the time barring actions qua invocation of proceedings u/s 148A. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the Revenue and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. AR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

3.0 At the outset the Ld. DR for the Revenue informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority though has passed an ex-parte order yet gave relief to the assessee of Rs 1,21,27,525/-. The Ld . DR submitted that in this case total cash deposits of Rs 2,42,55,050/- were noted in Bank accounts of the assessee maintained with IOB & Axis Bank during the demonetization period in the form of specified banks notes or SBN’s. The Ld AO was not satisfied with submissions of Assessee that said deposit

Page - 2 - of 5 had relation with amounts received from one APS Dairy marketing enterprises, a sundry debtor and that said party had directly deposited cash in assessee’s bank accounts. It was also submitted that the Ld.AO also rejected the hypothesis that the party located at Chittur had deposited cash in assessee’s bank account at Chennai. Consequently, the Ld.AO made the addition of Rs.2,42,55,050/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has clearly recorded in para 3(a) of his order that the assessee had not responded to any of his notices which were issued on email Id bskumar-99@yahoo.com. The Ld. DR vehemently argued that the relief of Rs.1,21,27,525/- accorded by the Ld. CIT(A), as per para 3(d), is totally excessive and unwarranted as the same is without any basis. It has been argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely committed conjectures and surmises for which there is no demonstrative evidence on records. 4.0 The assessee was called absent in the case. There is nothing on records to indicate that it has contested the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). 5.0 We have heard the submissions of Ld.DR in the light of material available on records. The principal issue involves addition of Rs.2,42,55,050/- made by the Ld.AO u/s 68 qua unexplained cash deposits in its bank account. We have noted that the Ld.AO has made the addition on the basis of human probabilities and have not conducted Page - 3 - of 5 any meaningful enquiries into the sources of cash deposits. No enquiries were done with the APS Dairy marketing enterprises, a sundry debtor from whom the alleged cash deposit was received and who had also reportedly deposited the same in assessee’s bank accounts. We have also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has based relief purely upon a guess work. The relief accorded includes assessee’s submission of sale of scraps of about Rs.96,05,050/- but for which no cogent evidences were brought on records. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we set aside the assailed order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee shall make necessary compliances and any deviation would be adversely viewed. It is noted from para 3(d) of the appellate order that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the Ld.AO has not made any enquiries with the Sundry Debtor and that he ought to have made before making the additions. Consequently, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) that he may consider obtaining a remand report from the Ld.AO on various facets of the controversy, before drawing his conclusions. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.