SULPHI SAINUDHEEN SUNJU,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

PDF

ITA 60/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 July 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee's income tax return for AY 2017-18 was assessed under Section 144, and subsequently, a revised order was directed by the PCIT under Section 263, invoking Section 115BBE. The dispute arose from cash deposits of Rs. 21,27,000/- during demonetization, treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, which the assessee claimed was from existing cash balances but failed to provide cash books due to unavoidable circumstances. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals against both the original and subsequent orders without adjudicating on merits.

Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to produce documents to substantiate their claim before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

Key Issues

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present evidence regarding cash deposits.

Sections Cited

144, 263, 115BBE, 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SONJOY SARMABefore Shri Inturi Rama RaoandShri Sonjoy Sarma

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sulpi Sainudeen Sunju…………….……………………………..….……….Appellant Ayirath House, Kottukulangara, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha, Kerala-690502. [PAN:AXRPS2806C] vs. ITO, Ward-1 & TPS, Allappuzha…......................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri R Krishnan, CA,appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Suresh Sivanandan, DR,appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing :June 04, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order :July 22, 2025 ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee arise from separate orders dated 21.11.2024 & 27.11.24 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(Appeals)’]both for the assessment years 2017–18. As the issues involved in both appeals are similar and pertain to the same assessee, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, we first take up ITA No.60/Coch/2025. facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year at Rs.22,20,330/-. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s 144 determining total income of Rs.4,43,18,260/-.

&60/COCH/2025 Sulpi Sainudeen Sunju 3. Subsequently, ld.PCIT in exercise of his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 directed the Assessing Officer to pass subsequent order by invoking the provision of section 115BBE. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed order dated 14.03.23. The assessee challenged both the original and subsequent order before the ld. CIT(A) but both the appeals were dismissed and hence, the assessee is in appeal before us.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the revenue treated the cash deposits of Rs.21,27,000/- made during the demonetization periods as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and this is not correct since from 08.11.2016, the assessee had cash balance of Rs.927755/- as per books of account. The ld. AR stated that the assessee was unable to provide the cash books due to unavoidable circumstances including change of authorized representatives and personal hardship which is beyond the control of the assessee. The ld. AR further stated that since cash was duly reflected in books and the assessee did not able to provide the documents and other evidences during the appellate proceedings, therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee. The ld. AR also brought to our notice that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the issue had already adjudicated and the subsequent order passed u/s 263 of the Act, therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, which is incorrect since the appeal against original assessment order is an independent appeal and the ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated this matter on merits, therefore, the instant appeal may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee adequate opportunity to present his case.