Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, proprietor of M/s Four Star Associates, filed a return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring Rs. 16,06,850. The AO completed assessment at Rs. 1,00,83,057, making additions including Rs. 41,28,962 for unexplained cash deposits and Rs. 39,30,000 for addition to capital. The CIT(A) upheld the addition to capital but deleted others.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the explanation regarding the source of capital addition and did not consider submissions on other additions. The matter was therefore remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions regarding the source of capital addition and other deletions.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68
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 Cheeran Jose Shunson .......... Appellant Cheeran House, Kottappadi S.O. Perakam, Thrissur 680505 [PAN: DPAPS4426C] vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1 & TPS, Guruvayoor .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Ashil M.A., CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29.10.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is proprietor of M/s Four Star Associates and a partner of M/s Nine Star Associates. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 15.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 16,06,850/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward 2(5), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total
i. Addition on account of unexplained cash Rs. 41,28,962 deposit in specified bank notes during demonetisation period ii. Addition u/s. 68 on account of addition to Rs. 39,30,000 capital iii. Disallowance of administrative Rs. 4,17,245 expenditure at 20% Total addition Rs. 84,76,207 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order upheld the addition on account of addition to capital of Rs. 39,30,000/- while deleting the other additions.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the assessee submits before me that the CIT(A), without properly appreciating the explanation offered in support of the source of addition made to the capital, simply confirmed the addition. The CIT(A), without taking into consideration the submissions filed by the appellant, merely confirmed the action of the AO, Therefore, the matter may be remanded to the file of the AO for which the learned Sr. DR had no serious objection.
I find merit in the submissions made by the appellant that the CIT(A) had passed the order without considering the submissions of Cheeran Jose Shunson the appellant in support of the source of addition made to the capital and without taking into account the submissions regarding other additions. I, therefore, remand the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025.