Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an individual running a travel agency, filed an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The AO completed the assessment making an addition of Rs. 3,08,000/- for unexplained cash deposits made in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without admitting additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting additional evidence and providing proper opportunity of hearing. Both parties agreed to a remand. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, with directions to afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting additional evidence regarding cash deposits made during demonetisation, and if the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdulrahiman Abdulkadar .......... Appellant 1/519, Chimbukkad P.O., Erimahur, Palakkad [PAN: AHHPA4212A] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-5, Palakkad .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Aditya Unnikrishnan, Advocate Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 24.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of running travel agency in the name and style of M/s. Almas Travel and Tours. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 04.08.2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,03,170/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Palakkad vide order dated 01.10.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Abdulrahiman Abdulkadar Act) at total income of Rs. 7,11,170/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 3,08,000/- on account of cash deposits made in specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetisation period as unexplained money of the appellant for the failure of the appellant to discharge the onus of proving the source of said deposits.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidence by holding that the appellant had failed to furnish evidence in support of said cash deposits.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A), without admitting the additional evidence and giving proper opportunity of hearing, merely confirmed the addition. The said cash deposits were made out of regular business receipts and, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.
On the other hand, had no serious objection to remand the matter back to the AO.
I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above submission of the appellant, I remand the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November, 2025.