SUBRAMANIAN SUNDARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2 (4),, CHENNAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 belatedly on 07.02.2017 admitting a total income of ₹.12,00,370/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and against statutory notices, the assessee filed various details. On perusal of the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made cash deposits in his various bank accounts to the extent of ₹.2,63,83,650/- and thus, the assessee was asked to explain the source. In response to the same, the assessee has submitted that he used to get the cash in his coffee business as well as some portion of the rental income he receives in cash. He also submitted that he was in a joint family and his family members having their individual business has lent money in cash to support him. However, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not produced any confirmation or the documentary evidence regarding their source of income or any loan confirmation from them or the quantification of cash portion in his rental income as well as from his coffee business. After examining the bank statements and explanation offered by the assessee and in line with the business of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by estimating 10% of his total income as additional income over and above the total income already admitted in the return of income and made addition of ₹.26,38,365/- [10% of ₹.2,63,83,650/-]. On appeal, since the assessee could not responded/ represented his case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Despite sufficient opportunities given, none represented on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Hence we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR.

We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the addition of ₹.26,38,365/-, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Despite various opportunities given to the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee or filed any written submissions before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the Tribunal, the assessee has not filed any material evidence to support his transactions except filing grounds of appeal and orders of authorities below. No authority can decide an appeal upon the grounds of appeal of the assessee without supporting evidence, etc. In view of the above, the assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents with cogent evidence to support his claim before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue raised in the appeal of the assessee after affording an opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.