AMIRTHAGOWRI,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 312/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 March 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the assessee's negligence but, considering the best judgment assessment, decided to provide another opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an assessment framed on a best judgment basis due to unexplained cash deposits. The assessee did not appear before the lower authorities or the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits made on a best judgment basis was justified, and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to prove the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Amirthagowri ITO बनाम/ No.28, Perumal Koil Street Ward-1, Villianur Commune, Koodapakkam Puducherry. Vs. Puducherry – 605 505 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.APRPA-2916-D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओरसे/ Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24-03-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 24-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28-06-2021 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w s. 147 of the Act on 23-11-2019. The assessment has been framed on best judgment basis wherein cash deposits made by the assessee have been added u/s 68.

2 - 2. None has appeared for the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal considering the orders of the lower authorities.

3.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by observing that the assessee first deposits cash on various dates and then withdraws the cash from the bank. The source of cash deposits has remained unexplained. The cash withdrawn from the accounts is after the cash is deposited. Since the source has remained unexplained, the additions have been confirmed.

4.

Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the proceedings before lower authorities and could not prove the source of cash deposit, however, keeping in view the fact that the assessment has been framed u/s 144, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter of assessment is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment. The assessee is directed to substantiate the source of cash deposit failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment on the basis of material on record.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th March, 2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →