SHRI. THETTAYIL DEVASSY VARGHEESE,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), RANGE-2, THRISSUR

PDF

ITA 473/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 April 2025AY 2014-2015Bench: the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO, in the absence of necessary evidence. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. During the course of hearing the appellant filed an application for admission of additional evidence in the form of invoices and lorry receipts in order to demonstrate the sales were actually made to Thettayil Traders. I am satisfied with the reasons for not filing the additional evidence before the l3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The appellant, an individual engaged in business as "Thettayil Metals", filed a return for AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) and made an addition of Rs. 33,77,916/-, disbelieving the appellant's claim that cash received from a sister concern, "Thettayil Traders", was from genuine sales. The CIT(A) subsequently confirmed the AO's action.

Held

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application for admission of additional evidence, including invoices and lorry receipts, to prove the sales to Thettayil Traders. Satisfied with the reasons for not presenting this evidence earlier, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO to reconsider the issue afresh, taking into account the newly submitted evidence.

Key Issues

Whether an addition for unexplained cash receipts from a sister concern was justified, and the admissibility of additional evidence (invoices, lorry receipts) at the Tribunal stage to substantiate sales.

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

For Appellant: Shri Tomson T. Emmanuel, Advocate

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Hearing: 28.04.2025Pronounced: 30.04.2025

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 14.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual carrying on business in the name and style of “Thettayil Metals”. The return of income for AY 2014-15 was filed on 28.11.2014 declaring income of Rs. 7,23,240/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 30.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 41,01,156/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Thettayil Devassy Vargheese Rs. 33,77,916/- being the amount of cash stated to have been received from sister concern, namely Thettayil Traders, a partnership firm in which the appellant is interested as a partner, disbelieving the version of the appellant that the cash was received on account of sales made.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO, in the absence of necessary evidence.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

During the course of hearing the appellant filed an application for admission of additional evidence in the form of invoices and lorry receipts in order to demonstrate the sales were actually made to Thettayil Traders. I am satisfied with the reasons for not filing the additional evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, I remand the matter back to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh taking into consideration the additional evidence filed before me. All other contentions raised before me are kept open before the AO.