MOHAMEDASEEF ABDUL RAHIM,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2462/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 December 2024AY 2012-13Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence but, adhering to natural justice, granted another opportunity to substantiate the case before the lower authorities. The impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arose from an order confirming the addition of Rs.15.93 Lacs, representing cash deposits, due to the failure to submit documentary evidence. The assessee argued they could substantiate the source of deposits if given another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to substantiate cash deposits when documentary evidence was not provided earlier.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

(िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Mohamedaseef Abdul Rahim ITO बनाम/ Old No.18, New No.14 Ward-1 Mamul Labhai Street, Kottakuppam, Puducherry. Vs. Puducherry-605 104. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AFMPA-5270-R (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) - Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms.T.M. Suganthamala (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned ADDL/JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bengaluru [CIT(A)] dated 19-07-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 18-12-2019. The registry has noted a delay of 2 days in the appeal, which stands condoned and we proceed with disposal of the appeal.

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.15.93 Lacs u/s.68 of the Act which represents cash deposits in bank accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same since the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of its claim. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate the source of cash deposits if afforded another opportunity. The same has been opposed by revenue.

3.

Though the assessee has remained negligent in substantiating its case during first appeal, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before lower authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case forthwith.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 10th December, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →