Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, which upheld an addition of Rs. 2,07,38,876/- on account of unexplained credits. The assessee contended that due to personal pre-occupations and health issues, including Covid-19, timely compliance with the lower authorities was not possible.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were not speaking orders and lacked clear facts. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's conduct was unsatisfactory in terms of compliance. Therefore, one last opportunity was granted to the assessee to present its case and evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities have made the addition without proper inquiry and speaking orders, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2017-18 Suyambulinga Nadar Dhanasekar, Income Tax Officer, No.21, Kamaraj Nagar Main Road, Non-Corp Ward-7(1), Avadi, Chennai. Chennai-600 071. [PAN: ADOPD2286L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gautham S. Mukundan, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1072061559(1) dated 10.01.2025 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 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities the Ld.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex- parte orders in case of the assessee qua the issue of addition of Rs.2,07,38,876/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained credits (including cash deposits during demonetization period). The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO had noted the assessee has not filed any return of income in time and one filed on 17.04.2018 was deemed as an invalid return. Admittedly, the assessee could not make compliance before the lower authorities on account of compelling pre-occupation with personal issues. It was accordingly requested that one last opportunity be given to explain its case before the lower authorities. The Ld.AR submitted personal assurance to make due timely compliances before the lower authorities. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the assessee reportedly could not make compliances on account of his health issues, including affliction with Covid-19. It was submitted that the staff attending to his business requirement were not adequately conversant with tax matters and the resultant non-compliance. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant gets benefits by non-prosecution of its case. As per facts recorded by the lower authorities in thier orders, opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to making of the impugned addition. We have however noted Page - 2 - of 4 that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee. 5.0 We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of deposits in assessee’s bank account lies at the core of the controversy. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The assessing officer is the primary authority under the income tax act to be examine facts of a case in the light of available evidences before determining correct taxable income of a tax payer. We therefore set aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and we direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Page - 3 - of 4 AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on , June-2025 at Chennai.