K. RENGANATHAN (HUF),VELLORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, VELLORE

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064957384(1) dated 17.05.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017- 18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 17.05.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 Brief factual matrix of the case is that the Ld.AO has made an addition of Rs.69,00,000/- to income of the assess u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee had reportedly made cash deposit of Rs.69,00,000/- in its Gandhinagar Vellore branch of HDFC bank during demonetization period . Before the Ld.AO it was contended that the assessee was in money lending business and that the impugned deposits were return of principle loans amount, interest there upon. The assessee however could not provide the details of names and address of the said parties to whom alleged loans were advanced. Consequently, the Ld.AO proceeded to treat the impugned deposits as unexplained deposits u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the act and made the addition of Rs.69,00,000/-. 3.0 Before us the assessee has raised grounds of appeal

No.1 to 14 all of which are centering around the principal controversy of addition of Rs.69,00,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the act. Ground of appeal No.3 is regarding adjudication of appeal by the CIT(A) without any proper consideration of the facts and by a mere “cut and paste” of the finding of the Ld. AO given in his order. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have taken notice of the ground of appeal No.3 regarding adjudication of appeal by the CIT(A) without any proper consideration of the facts and by a mere “cut and paste” of the finding of the Ld. AO given in his order. We have also noted that the averments raised by the assessee are totally evident from the order of Ld. CIT(A). It clearly seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely copy pasted contents from page

4. (second last para of AO’s order) and para 5.1.7 on page-5 of the Ld. AO’s order. He has after said copy paste in para 4 of his order merely concluded “the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Thus it is glaring fact of this case that the Ld. CIT(A) has not discharged his adjudicating responsibility with even a grain of sincerity or accountability. The Ld. CIT(A) was required to have examined the facts of the case viz a viz conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO and thereafter to proceed with his own decision as to whether he concurs or not. In fact, this is the only function for a appellate authority. 4.1 The appellate order is a prime example of discharge of appellate functions in the most callous and careless manner without any application of mind. It is trite law that application of mind is basic ingredient for any judicious order. The revenue do well to recommend the impugned Ld. CIT(A) for training so as to equip him with basic skills required for discharge of appellate functions, which come with serious responsibilities. Alternatively, the revenue may