Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 14.61 Lacs for cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition. The assessee did not file supporting documents to establish the source of the deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the onus to establish the source of cash deposits was on the assessee, which they failed to do. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities correctly confirmed the addition of cash deposits without providing an opportunity to substantiate the source, and whether Section 68 was rightly invoked.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
(िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sathiyaseelan ITO बनाम/ 100, Edyar Street, Non-Corporate Ward-1(4) Vs. Coimbatore-641 001. Coimbatore. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. BJGPS-0067-K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. S. Mathangi (Advocate)– Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 24-07-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 23-12-2019. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that Ld. AO has made addition of cash deposits of Rs.14.61 Lacs as deposited during demonetization period in specified bank notes (SBN). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned addition and in para 4.2, observed that the assessee did not file any supporting documents to establish the source of deposits. Aggrieved, the assessee is further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR has stated that the provisions of Section 68 could not be invoked in such cases. The Ld. AR also prayed for another opportunity before lower authorities to substantiate the source of cash deposits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.
Having heard rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the onus to establish the source of cash deposit was on the assessee but the assessee could not substantiate the same. Therefore, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposit.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd December, 2024.