CHOKKALINGAM KUMAR,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THIRUVANNAMALAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2637/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not properly represented themselves before the lower appellate authority. While acknowledging the Revenue's submissions, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the AO for a denovo assessment, directing the assessee to provide all evidence and documentation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in rice trading, filed a return for AY 2017-18 admitting an income of Rs. 3,86,220. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed a deposit of Rs. 15,01,500 in Specified Bank Notes during demonetization. The assessee claimed cash sales as the source, which the AO rejected. The AO assessed the Rs. 15,01,500 as unexplained money under section 69A and taxed it at 60% under section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly assessed the amount as unexplained income, and whether the assessee was afforded adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 17.12.2024Pronounced: 20.12.2024

(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Chokkalingam Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 41/70, Sattanaicken Street, Ward 1, Thiruvannamalai 606 601. Thiruvannamalai. [PAN: BXDPK 8617G] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS CIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (NFAC), DELHI [CIT(A)] dated 16.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted delay of 01 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated in the condonation application which is supported by an affidavit of Assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is an individual and engaged in the business of trading in rice in the name and style of Ms Sri Sakthi Traders. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14.02.2018 calling for filing of the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. In response to the above notice, the Appellant filed the return of income electronically on 23.09.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.3,86,220/-. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer had observed that the Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.15,01,500/- during the demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes. The Appellant during the assessment proceedings had submitted that the cash sales made prior to demonetization were the source for deposits made in Specified Bank Notes. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 04.12.2019, the Assessing Officer had rejected the explanations offered by the Appellant and had brought to tax an amount of Rs. 15,01,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same at the rate of 60 percent by invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The Appellant in this appeal vehemently objects to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tiruvannamalai dated 04.12.2019. Assessee further challenged the ex-parte order of assessment u/s 144 of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO on merits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the AO has not properly served notices or given sufficient time to file evidence and documents to substantiate his explanation. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →