Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an ex-sportsman, filed a return of income declaring Nil income for AY 2017-18. The AO completed the assessment at Rs. 38,75,280/-, adding Rs. 33,82,000/- as unexplained cash deposits, rejecting the appellant's claim of withdrawal from banks. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed a cryptic order without considering the appellant's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of cash deposits as unexplained money was justified, and whether the NFAC order was passed without proper consideration of submissions.
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 Kalarickal Sukumaran Vinod .......... Appellant 1A Tanzeel Apartment, Kumranasan Nagar\ Kadavanthara, Ernakulam 682020 [PAN: AEAPV6534L] vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Abraham Joseph, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 13.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual stated to be an ex-sportsman. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 29.03.2018 declaring Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total income of Rs. 38,75,280/-. While doing so, Kalarickal Sukumaran Vinod the AO made addition of cash deposits in specified bank notes with several banks aggregating to Rs. 33,82,000/- being unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the contention of the appellant that such cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals of Rs. 50,00,000/- made on 12.04.2016 on the ground that the on preponderance of probability, the appellant would not have kept the money with him when the cash was withdrawn for the purpose of setting up of boxing club and also in the absence of evidence to show that the appellant had spent money on construction of boxing club in cash.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal by passing cryptic order without addressing the submissions made before him.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset I find that the NFAC passed a very cryptic order without taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellant on factual aspects as well legal position governing the addition. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter should be remanded back to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th August, 2025.