SHRI LALITH KUMAR PADMA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-2, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2988/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 October 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made cash deposits and failed to provide details to the AO. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in money lending, declared an income of Rs. 6,37,010/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny due to cash deposits and made an addition under Section 68 as the assessee failed to produce books of accounts.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits is justified when the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 25.10.2021Pronounced: 25.10.2021

आदेश / O R D E R

Per V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai in dated 29.08.2019 relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2 -: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in money lending business, filed her return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 6,37,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS under the category of LIMITED SCRUTINY for the reason that whether the cash deposits have made from the undisclosed sources. In response to notice, the assessee’s counsel appeared and he has submitted before the A.O that he will produce the books of accounts for verification. However, the assessee has not produced any books of accounts therefore, the A.O has made addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as “the Act”).

None appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order.

3.

Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that all the details in respect of cash deposits made by the assessee are readily available with the assessee and the same is filed in the form of paper book and submitted that the issue may be remitted back to the A.O to substantiate his case before the A.O.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has supported the orders of the authorities below.

3 -: 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.

6.

In this case the assessee has made cash deposits in his bank account and the A.O was asked the source, he has not filed any details therefore, the A.O made addition u/s. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O to adjudicate this appeal afresh denovo in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to file all relevant material to substantiate his case before the A.O. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →