Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the advertisement business, filed his return for AY 2014-15. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) and made an addition of Rs. 53,30,000/-, treating a cash deposit as unexplained money. The assessee contended that the amount was a gift from his brother, but the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.
Held
The ITAT condoned a 14-day delay in filing the appeal due to a technical glitch. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the grounds of appeal or facts. Therefore, the ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of cash deposits as unexplained money and dismissing the appeal without adverting to the grounds of appeal and facts, particularly regarding the application of Section 56(2)(vii) and the genuineness of the gift claimed by the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 56(2)(vii)
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 This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 27.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of advertisement. The return of income for AY 2014-15 was filed on 26.02.2015 declaring income of Rs. 5,15,110/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Palakkad (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, Kajamoideen Mohammed Hashim 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 57,45,110/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 53,30,000/- treating the cash deposit as unexplained money of the assessee, rejecting the explanation that the cash deposits were made out of the gift received from his brother, Shri Thanseer Kaja.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
There is a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred on account of the technical glitch in the ITAT portal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), I find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adverting to the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts filed before him. In the grounds of appeal it is pleaded that provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act have no application. The appellant discharged the onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, AO should not have rejected the explanation of the assessee merely on the basis of Kajamoideen Mohammed Hashim assumptions. Without adverting to facts, the CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal on surmises and, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met, if the matter is restored for de novo disposal of the appeal 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2025. 9.