Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits of ₹31,75,500 during the demonetization period, claiming they were proceeds from agricultural products, and submitted supporting documents. The Assessing Officer added this amount under Section 69A, and the CIT(A) confirmed it, citing a lack of submissions from the assessee and untimely deposits.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to the auditor's email and not the assessee's. Observing that the Assessing Officer failed to give a finding on the agricultural activities despite the submitted evidence, the tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration (de novo). The stay application became infructuous and was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the addition under Section 69A for cash deposits was justified when the assessee claimed agricultural income and submitted supporting documents. 2. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No.18/Chny/2025 [In Vellaisamy Sivakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sri Sivas Hotels, New Bus Stand, Ward 2, Thanjavur 613 005. Thanjavur. [PAN:DVPPS6952C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 351 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.
& S.A. No. 18/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
We find, both appeal and stay application listed before us for hearing. The ld. AR prayed to take up the appeal first as it was adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any submissions. Upon hearing the otherwise, with consent of both, we proceed to hear the appeal first.
The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer.
5. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹.31,75,500/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. On perusal of the last para of the assessment order, we note that the assessee contended that the cash deposits were arising out of sale proceeds of agricultural products. The assessee uploaded Patta, Chitta, Adangal and VAO certificates showing agricultural activities in support of the same. But, the & S.A. No. 18/Chny/25 Assessing Officer observed that the cash deposits should have been deposited within a week of announcement of demonetization and not all along end of December, 2016 by treating the same as unexplained money, added to the income of the assessee. Having aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, having no written submission or any documentary evidence filed by the assessee, the view of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
6. Before us, the ld. AR Shri G. Akash, Advocate submits that there was no opportunity for the assessee before the authorities below. The ld. AR drew our attention to the screenshot of service of notice placed at page 28 to 32 of the paper book and argued that all the notices were served on auditor’s e-mail and the assessee has no knowledge of the same. Since the Assessing Officer could not give any finding on agricultural activities of the assessee, the ld. AR prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration de novo.
The ld. DR did not report objection on the submission of the ld. AR.
& S.A. No. 18/Chny/25 8. Having considered the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, we note that admittedly, all notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were sent on auditor’s e-mail, but, not to assessee’s e-mail ID. As discussed above, the assessee contended that the cash deposits as found during the demonetization period were out of sale of agricultural products, but, however, no finding has been given by the Assessing Officer despite having uploaded Patta, Chitta, Adangal along with VAO certificates. Therefore, taking into consideration 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 Assessing Officer for de novo consideration and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Stay Application filed by the assessee in S.A. No. 18/Chny/2025, was also heard along with the main appeal. Since we have adjudicated the main appeal by setting aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, the stay petition filed by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
& S.A. No. 18/Chny/25 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed. Order pronounced on 26th February, 2025 at Chennai.