JAY A SHAH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,NCW4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 881/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 March 2022AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the appeal technically defective but granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed on technical grounds for not filing the complete assessment order. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 2.41 Lacs to the assessee's income under Section 68 for cash deposits lacking satisfactory evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed on technical grounds, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to prove the source of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

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 Lakshmichand Nahata (CA) – Ld. AR, Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 23-03-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 14-09-2020 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 07-11-2019. One of the grounds raised in the appeal is violation of principle of natural justice since impugned order has dismissed the appeal on technical grounds. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2. The material facts are that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3). The assessee deposited cash of Rs.2.41 Lacs which was added to its income u/s 68 in the absence of any satisfactory documentary evidences forthcoming from the assessee. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that only first page of the assessment order was filed alongwith Form No.35. Therefore, the appeal was held to be technically defective and not maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3. We find that the appeal has been held to be defective since the assessee did not e-file complete assessment order. However, keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a resident individual and it could not file documentary evidences during assessment proceedings, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposit of Rs.2.41 Lacs. Since the matter is factual one, the assessment stands restored back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment on the basis of material on record.

4. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd March, 2022. (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा34 /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद< /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे)ई/ Chennai; िदनांक/ Dated : 23-03-2022 JPV JPV JPV JPV आदेशकीXितिलिपअ9ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""यथ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु" (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु"/CIT 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →