Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
O R D E R
Per V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai in dated 15.07.2019 relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12.
C.O No.101/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of gold ornaments and making jewellery. The assessee-company in its original return of income filed on 28.02.2012 declared total income of Rs. 4,11,010/-. In the assessment order, the A.O has noted that the assessee has made a cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 2,04,45,000/- and contract receipt of Rs. 11,07,431/-. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as “the Act”).
On receipt of the same, the assessee filed the return of income on 01.12.2018 admitting total income of Rs. 4,11,011/-.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O has asked the assessee to produce books of accounts in support of cash deposits or statement explaining the source of cash deposits. It was submitted by the assessee is that the assessee-company that all the books of accounts and other documents were kept in the residential premises of the Directors, a portion of which was occupied by the assessee- company as it is registered office and the residential property is under lock and key of the bankers under SARFESI Act and the Court proceedings are still going on and submitted that it is not possible to the assessee to produce details of the debtors, ledger accounts, bills and vouchers and supporting evidence like cash deposits and sales
C.O No.101/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: vouchers. The A.O after considering the explanation filed by the assessee, he added entire deposits of Rs. 2,05,97,800/- u/s. 69 of the Act and assessment was completed on the ground that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden of proof that lies on the assessee- company.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the business premises were under the lock and key of the bankers attachment under the SARFESI Act therefore, he estimated the profit and deleted the addition made by the A.O.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Before us, both the parties have agreed that the issue may be remitted back to the A.O and adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed the Ld. CIT(A) and we remit the issue back to the file of the A.O and direct the A.O to examine books of accounts by following the necessary procedure and decide the issue denovo in accordance with law.
So far as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is concerned, the C.O was filed in support of the appellate order passed by the Ld.
C.O No.101/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: CIT(A). Since we have remitted the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the C.O filed by the assessee become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for the statistical purposes and the C.O filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 29th September, 2021 in Chennai.