KARUPANNA GOUNDER NATARAJAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3160/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 February 2025AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed their orders without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. To meet the ends of justice and provide the assessee with another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer and submit relevant details for adjudication. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition made under Section 69A, as the matter was being remanded for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karupanna Gounder Natarajan, an individual engaged in poultry farming, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,98,910/-. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted cash deposits of Rs. 61,02,210/- in the assessee's savings bank account during the demonetization period. The AO issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee did not comply. The AO observed that while deposits of SBN notes up to Rs. 8,77,500/- by 11.11.2016 were acceptable, deposits of Rs. 15,02,500/- after this date were not. Consequently, the AO passed an ex-parte order on 29.09.2021, adding Rs. 15,02,500/- under Section 69A and assessing total income at Rs. 20,01,410/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who also dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 06.06.2024 due to non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should set aside the ex-parte orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, given the assessee's non-prosecution before the lower authorities? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the case was not prosecuted before the Assessing Officer and that the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order without any discussion. The assessee prayed for setting aside the order for re-adjudication. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 06.06.2024.

2.

There is a delay of 103 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the Poultry Farm business. The assessee has filed return of income on 31.10.2017, admitting total income of Rs. 4,98,910/-.

1.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.61,02,210/- in his savings bank account maintained with Canara Bank, Namakkal during demonetization period. The A.O therefore issued a notice to the assessee u/s. 148 of the Act. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. Upon perusal of bank statement, the A.O found that the assessee had deposited SBN notes of Rs. 8,77,500/- up to 11.11.2016 is reasonable which correlated with the cash balance of the assessee as on 07.11.2016. However, the assessee had deposited the SBN notes of Rs.15,02,500/- after 11.11.2016, which was not acceptable. The AO, therefore, passed an ex-parte order dated 29.09.2021 by making an addition of Rs. 15,02,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act, assessing total income of Rs. 20,01,410/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices from 16.03.2024 to 27.05.2024, but there was no compliance for the notices by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by passing an order dated 06.06.2024.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, since the case was not prosecuted before the Assessing Officer and the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any discussion.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the impugned order.

6.

We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the lower authorities below. It is noted that the AO and that of the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice by providing one more opportunity to the assessee, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the AO and at liberty to submit the relevant details before the AO for adjudication of the case.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 21st February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →