KOMARASAMI MURUGESAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NCC-2,, COIMBATORE

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 05.02.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2013-14.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed impugned order considering irrelevant material and omitted to consider the relevant material and therefore, action of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous. Drawing our attention to Para No.5.1 of the impugned order, he brought to our notice that though the written- submissions filed by the assessee has been reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A), but the contents of which was pertaining to Stay Application filed before the Ld.CIT(A) against the demand. And based on the aforesaid contents of the Stay Application, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have decided the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and ignored the main written- submissions filed by the assessee in support of grounds of appeal raised before him. The assertion made by the Ld.AR couldn’t be rebutted by the Ld.DR.

The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that in the present case, the AO has made the addition u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) by taking note of the cash deposits of more than ₹5 Crs. in the assessee’s bank account and has passed ex- parte order (without hearing the assessee) by making addition of the entire cash deposits. According to the Ld.AR, similar action was taken for AY 2017-18, wherein, also the AO has added the entire cash deposits in his bank account which was also decided by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by order dated 24.02.2025, wherein he was pleased to set aside the assessment assessment after hearing the assessee and placed a copy of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order for AY 2017-18. In that case for AY 2017-18, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have appreciated the assessee’s contentions that nature and source of cash deposits need to be verified and such an exercise requires extensive factual verification and therefore, he was pleased to set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass fresh assessment. In view of the action taken by the Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 and similar situation prevails for AY 2013-14, the Ld.AR prays that the similar action should have been ordered by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed for restoring the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR undertakes to appear and file all the details to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous since the Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating the grounds of appeal has considered irrelevant material and dismissed the grounds of appeal of the assessee.