MR. SUBRAMANIAN VIJAY SETHUNARAYANAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), TRICHY

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16.

We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 274 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, & SA No. 80/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 274 days is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

Coming to the merits of the case, we note that the assessee filed original return of income declaring total income of ₹.4,73,320/- and the return was selected for limited scrutiny for large cash deposits in savings bank account(s). The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] requesting the assessee to furnish copy of statement for all bank accounts held by him and books of account and source for cash deposits in saving bank accounts. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made cash deposits in the saving bank accounts of HDFC and ICICI Bank Ltd. to the tune of ₹.65,03,750/- and ₹.27,45,500/- respectively and failed to furnish any supporting documents/evidences. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹.97,22,570/- vide his order dated 29.12.2017 under section 144 of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the impugned order at para 3, we note that the ld. CIT(A) issued 5 notices and there was no response from the assessee in & SA No. 80/Chny/24 substantiating the grounds raised

Before us, the ld. AR Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CA pleads that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee and the assessee is ready with all material evidence to prosecute his case without fail before the Assessing Officer.

The ld. DR Shri K.S. Ilayaraja, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to the orders of authorities below and argued that the ld. CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer have given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. He vehemently argued that the costs may be imposed in case this Tribunal afford an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition involved therein, in our opinion, it requires assistance from the assessee and therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration subject to the condition of payment of ₹.25,000/- towards cost in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, & SA No. 80/Chny/24 Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Assessing Officer shall satisfy on production of receipt of payment of cost imposed hereinabove and to decide the issue in accordance with law after considering the documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Stay Application filed by the assessee in S.A. No. 80/Chny/2024, was also heard along with the main appeal. Since we have adjudicated the main appeal by setting aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, the stay petition filed by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed. Order pronounced on 18th December, 2024 at Chennai.