SHRI RAMU NAICKER RAJA,ATTUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 123/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 February 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. Both parties agreed to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income but not within the stipulated time, leading to a reassessment. The Assessing Officer treated a cash deposit of Rs. 11,16,027/- as unexplained cash credit as no explanation was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit made by the assessee could be treated as unexplained cash credit without proper verification. The issue was whether the explanation provided by the assessee for the cash deposit was sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 08.02.2021Pronounced: 09.02.2021

आदेश / O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem in dated 22.11.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2011 - 2012.

2.

The facts are in brief is that the Assessee had filed the return of income by declaring a total income of Rs.9,95,080/-. The Assessee had not filed the return of income within the stipulated time as permitted u/s.139(1) and therefore the Assessing Officer by issuing a notice u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has noted that the Assessee has made a cash deposit of Rs.11,16,027/- and has not given any explanation and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as unexplained cash credit to the bank account of the Assessee u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly the assessment was complete.

3.

Before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessee has submitted that Rs.4,55,000/- has been received from his elder son and Rs.1,60,000/- was received from his wife and Rs.2,50,000/- was received from his another son, Shri. R. Hariharan and the remaining balance amount were from past savings of his family.

4.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by considering the explanation given by the Assessee has observed that the Assessee has not filed any details and therefore confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have heard both the sides through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.

6.

Before us, both the parties agreed that the issue may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order de nova in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the Assessee had also submitted that he will file all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer.

7.

In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order de nova in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 9th February, 2021 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →