Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file the return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO initiated assessment under Section 147, read with Section 144B, after noticing a cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,95,500/-, making an addition of Rs. 9,13,501/- under Section 69A as unexplained money. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition to Rs. 4,13,501/-.
Held
The Tribunal, acknowledging the appellant's claim of not being given a reasonable opportunity to explain the cash deposit's source before the CIT(A), remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment, ensuring a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits before the CIT(A) in the assessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
139, 148, 147, 144B, 69A
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, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 07.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had not filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). As per the information available with the department, the ACIT, Kollam (hereinafter called "the AO") noticed that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,95,500/- with ICICI Bank. Therefore, a notice u/s. 148 of the Baiju Kabeer Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021. In response to the notice, the appellant filed return of income on 29.09.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 7,74,559/- being 8% of the total turnover of Rs. 96,81,999/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 14.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 15,73,061/-. While doing so, the AO made addition u/s. 69A of the Act of Rs. 9,13,501/- on cash deposit as unexplained money.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal, by granting relief to the appellant by restricting the addition to Rs. 4,13,501/-, being the difference of cash deposits in current account of Rs. 1,00,95,500/- and the turnover declared by the appellant at Rs. 96,81,999/-.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before me in the present appeal.
I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In view of the submission of the appellant that in the absence of reasonable opportunity to explain the source for cash deposit before the CIT(A), the matter be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.