ENAYATHULLAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-11(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate his claims regarding cash deposits. If the assessee remains non-cooperative, the AO can draw inferences.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The assessee remained unrepresented before the Tribunal and had been non-cooperative in assessment and appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate the sources of cash deposits in his bank account.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश /O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 13, Chennai in dated 19.10.2019 for the assessment year 2011-12.
None represented on behalf of the assessee and Smt. R.Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the assessee has not produced any evidence to substantiate his arguments that the cash deposited in the HDFC bank account of the assessee was from explained sources. In reply to a specific query put to her, as to whether the assessee can be granted another opportunity before the Assessing Officer, it was responded that she had no objection but it was the duty of the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits in his bank account.
I have considered the submissions of the Ld.DR through video conferencing. It is noticed that the assessee has been non-cooperative in the assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee remains absent. However, considering the interest of natural justice, I’m of the view that the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his claim. In these circumstances, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. In the event that the assessee remains non-cooperative and fails to produce adequate evidence before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to draw inference.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th August, 2020 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026