What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the source of investment with sufficient documentary evidence.

The assessee invested Rs. 6.89 Lacs through the bank but failed to satisfactorily explain the source of investment. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, finding the provided details of unsecured loans incomplete.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of investment, and if not, whether a further opportunity should be granted.

Kanniappan Perumal vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. AR, Ms. R. Anita (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 31.12.2018 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of addition of Rs.6.89 Lacs in the impugned order.

2 - 2. The registry has noted a delay of 262 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of assessee’s affidavit dated 25.11.2019. It has been submitted by the assessee that all the records, documents and order copies were handed over to auditor who could not file appeal in time since his mother expired at that time. Though the Ld. DR opposed the admission of appeal, however, keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a resident individual and a small tax payer, we condone the delay and proceed with the adjudication of appeal on merits.

Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be gathered that the assessee invested a sum of Rs.6.89 Lacs through bank. However, the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of investment and accordingly, the amount of Rs.6.89 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee by Ld. AO. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the source of investment was unsecured loans taken by assessee from 6 persons as detailed in para 6.1 of impugned order. However, the plea was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) by observing that full details were not furnished and the documents were incomplete. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

Before us, Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity to substantiate the source of investment. Keeping in view the same, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file sufficient documentary evidences to the satisfaction of lower authorities to substantiate the source of investment failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the adjudication on the basis of material on record.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 10th January, 2022.

KANNIAPPAN PERUMAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD - 10(3), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments