Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a gold dealer, challenged an assessment order for AY 2017-18 where the AO made additions for unexplained cash deposits, repayment of cash credit loans, and undervaluation of closing stock. The CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appellant's appeal without considering their detailed submissions.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 21-day delay in filing the appeal. It found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and passed without referring to the appellant's submissions and evidence. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing a cryptic order without considering the assessee's submissions regarding additions for unexplained cash credits and undervaluation of stock, necessitating a remand.
Sections Cited
143(3), 145A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “CIT(A)”), dated 24/06/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of dealing in Gold. The Return of Income for the AY 2017-18 on 02/11/2017 disclosing the income of Rs. 38,95,730/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) vide order dated 26/12/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) at Rs.90,96,840/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 43,45,912/- treating the unexplained cash deposits in SIB, Triprayar of Rs. 5,11,507/- and treating the repayment of cash credit loans from Cathlic Syrian Bank of Rs.37,34,405/- as unexplained cash credits. The AO also made addition on account of under valuation of closing stock of Rs. 9,55,198/-.
Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the AO grossly erred in treating the re- assessment of Gold Loan as unexplained cash credits despite the fact that the appellant had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the Gold Loan availed and further, making the addition U/s. 145A of the Act despite the fact that the stock was adjusted by including the element of VAT. The appellant had filed detailed submissions before the CIT(A) which are placed before us. However, the CIT(A) without referring to the submissions of the appellant, simply dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic order.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with the affidavit wherein it was submitted that due to ill health of the Auditor dealing with the appellant’s matter, the appeal could not be filed within the due date prescribed under the Act. Considering the reasons adduced by the appellant in its condonation petition, we are of the considered opinion that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit and hence, we hereby condone the delay of 21 days and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the submissions of the appellant that the CIT(A), without referring to the submissions and evidence filed before him, has simply dismissed the appeal by passing the cryptic order. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order adverting to the submissions and evidence adduced before the CIT(A) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2025.