Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from an order confirming an addition of Rs.1,33,80,000/- on account of cash deposits. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to explain the source of these deposits, leading to an ex-parte confirmation by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative claimed technical glitches prevented timely submission of an agreement and ledger account explaining the cash deposits as commission receipts. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits when initial submissions were inadequate and the order was passed ex-parte?
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 14.02.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 27.03.2023.
The A.O in the assessment order passed order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act has made addition of Rs.1,33,80,000/- on account of cash deposits, as the assessee failed to file proper documentary evidences to explain the source of cash deposits. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte as the assessee has not responded to the hearing notices with appropriate submissions and explanations.
3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not upload the copy of the agreement entered into with M/s. Weizmann Forex Ltd. dated 02.03.2012, either before the A.O or before the Ld. CIT(A), due to technical glitches. The said agreement, along with the related ledger account, explains the source of the cash deposits as being commission receipts from M/s. Weizmann Forex Ltd. Therefore, it was prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte, as the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence to explain the cash deposits made during the demonetization period.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The A.O has made an addition of cash deposit of Rs.1,33,80,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to support the source of cash deposits. Before us, the Ld. A.R has explained that the source of cash deposits was commission income received from M/s. Weizmann Forex Ltd., and has now submitted a copy of the agreement and ledger account in support of this claim. In the interest of justice and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish all relevant details for fresh consideration.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 30th day of July, 2025 at Chennai.