SUBBIAN IYAPPAN,TUTICORIN vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, TUTICORIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 745/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 October 2019AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the explanations provided. Considering that similar cash deposit sources were accepted in a subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for a fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, made significant cash deposits in bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for these deposits as the assessee, being abroad, could not furnish immediate explanations. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, finding the explanations provided later to be different from those given earlier.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO and CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's explanations for cash deposits, especially given the assessee's non-resident status and the acceptance of similar explanations in a later assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 04.10.2019

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in dated 31.01.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has also filed a stay petition in SP No.745 of 2019.

:-2-: SP No.279/Chny/2019 2. Shri Subbian Iyappan, the assessee, is a non-resident. He has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,52,87,000/- in three bank accounts. The ld.AR submitted that while making the assessment in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2015-16, the AO required the assessee to explain the sources of cash deposits made during the financial year 2014-15 in the three bank accounts. Since, the assessee being a non-resident and he was in abroad, he required time to furnish the details. Since, the assessment was barring by limitation, the AO made an addition to the impugned cash deposits and completed the assessment. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed certain explanations. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that the explanations given before the AO is entirely different from the explanations given before him by the assessee. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The ld.AR pleaded that in the assessee’s case, the assessee explained the sources in the subsequent assessment year 2017-18, which was on due examination, accepted by the AO and the order was passed U/s.143(3) r.w. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 dated

:-3-: SP No.279/Chny/2019 30.05.2019. In the circumstances, it was pleaded that if an opportunity is given to the assessee, he would make all endeavours to satisfy the genuineness of the transactions before the concerned authority and hence, the ld.AR pleaded that the issue may be remitted back to the concerned authority.

4.

We heard the rival submissions. Since, the assessee is pleading that he was non-resident and he could not furnish the due documents at the time of assessment. When the assessee filed certain explanations before the ld.CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) did not examine them and dismissed the appeal. Since, the sources of cash deposits made in the subsequent assessment year has been already accepted by the AO on due examination, we deem that the issues in this appeal are remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee shall lay all materials in support of his contention before the Assessing Officer and comply with the requirements of the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit, however, he shall furnish due opportunity to the assessee on the materials etc., to be used against the assessee and on due consideration of the :-4-: SP No.279/Chny/2019 assessee’s clarification / explanation, etc., the AO shall pass the order on merits in accordance with law.

5.

Since we have remitted the appeal back to the file of the AO, the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s stay petition is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th October, 2019 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →