JAYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the loan debtors' confirmation regarding cash payments was unclear and that the transactions might have been outside the books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a one-day delay, which was condoned. The core issue involved additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding deposits in the bank account, specifically concerning loan repayments.
What were the issues?
Whether the loan repayments were genuinely made in cash and whether the transactions were properly reflected in the books of account.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN
आदेश /O R D E R
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -5, Chennai, dated 16.08.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
There was a delay of one day in filing this appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the assessee and the Ld. D.R. I find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.
Shri D. Anand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deposits made in the bank account. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), more particularly at para 5.2 and 6.1, the Ld.counsel submitted that the CIT(Appeals) found that the loan debtors had not committed in their respective letters dated 11.03.2016 that they have paid in cash. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the matter needs to be re-examined whether the loan debtors have confirmed the fact of payment in cash has to be examined by the Assessing Officer.
Therefore, the Ld.counsel submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
On the contrary, Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') specifically asked the loan debtors to confirm whether it was paid in cash. However, they have not committed anything in their respective letters. Referring to the observation made by the CIT(Appeals) at para 6.3 of his order, the Ld. D.R. pointed out that the transaction of loan repayment was not reflected in the bank account of M/s New Star Enterprises. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., apparently it is outside the books of account, however, the matter may be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The only issue arises for consideration is deposits made in the bank account. The loan debtors were found non-committed with regard to payment in cash. The Revenue claims that the transaction was outside the books. Therefore, whether the loan debtors have paid the amount in cash or not needs to be examined. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be produced by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026