SUBBIAH SUBRAMANI VENKATESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-6(1), CHENNAI

The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Brief facts emanating from record are that the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was passed on 31.03.2022 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has not filed income tax return. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made cash deposit of ₹.77,20,510/- in his bank account of ICICI. There was no compliance to various notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act and show-cause notices issued under section 144/142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of ₹.77,20,510/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and determined the same as income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any written submissions or documentary evidences in support of the grounds of appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. AR Shri Hitesh, C.A. drew our attention to the statement of facts given in Form 35 and submits that the assessee has contended that he does not have an account in the alleged branch and the assessee deposited only ₹.49,66,445/- in his account held with ICICI Bank. He further submits that the assessee has alleged that based on the incorrect information, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the specific grounds raised

The ld. DR Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 4.1of the assessment order and argued that the Assessing Officer afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. She vehemently argued that costs may be imposed, in case this Tribunal affords an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

Having considered the submissions of the ld. AR and ld. DR, we note that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition under section 69A of the Act in the absence of explanation with documentary evidences or the assessee filed ROI. We find that there is no assistance from the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). Moreover, we note that in Form 35, under statement of facts, the assessee has stated that he does not have an account in the alleged branch and the assessee deposited only ₹.49,66,445/- in his account held with ICICI Bank. The assessee also raised specific grounds in ground No. 4 before the ld. CIT(A), which was not adjudicated upon, in fact, the assessee could not furnish any written submission or documentary evidence in support of the grounds of appeal challenging the addition. Considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) subject to the condition of payment of ₹.5,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue afresh including the issue raised in ground Nos. 3 & 4 after considering the written submissions / documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim and to pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th July, 2025 at Chennai.