ABRAHAM NELSON ASIR PRATHAB ASIR,KANYAKUMARI vs. ITO, WARD 3, NAGERCOIL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 951/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of sale deeds submitted by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO to examine these documents and decide the case afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 15,00,000 in cash during the demonetization period, claiming it was from the sale of agricultural land by his father. However, he failed to provide supporting documents to the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit during demonetization was from a valid source, and if additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 24.10.2024Pronounced: 24.10.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 11.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 17.12.2019.

2.

The only effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against confirming the addition of the cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- during demonetization period u/s. 69A of the Act and computing the tax at the enhanced rate of tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act.

1.

1. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,48,060/-. The assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 16.11.2016 in his saving bank account with Canara Bank during demonetization period. The assessee before A.O has explained that the cash deposit was out of sale proceeds of agricultural land made by his father. However, the assessee was not able to produce the details of sales and therefore, A.O has made addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act and levied tax @60% u/s. 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as the assessee has offered the cash deposit in want of documents and also confirmed computation of tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act.

4.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee before us has submitted the sale deeds in Survey No.79/3&8 in Document No.3726/2016, Survey No.17/9A in Document No.4164/2016, Survey No.17/9A in Document No.4165/2016 and Survey No.19/2A in Document No.666/2017 which were not available at the time of assessment and CIT(A) proceeding, in terms of Rule 29 of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (hereinafter “the Rules”) in support his contention before the A.O that the cash deposits were out of sale of agricultural property of his father. The Ld. AR has requested to admit the additional evidences and remit the matter back to the A.O in the interest of justice.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed to reject Ld AR’s request.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs.15,00,000/- during demonetization period and explained the source of cash as money received from his father on sale of agriculture land.

However, the assessee could not produce the necessary documents.

The assessee has not produced these documents even before Ld. CIT(A) as well. The assessee before us has now submitted the sale deed documents of four properties in support of his contention that cash was deposited out of sale proceed of above lands. The assessee has requested to accept these additional evidences as these documents are core to decide the issue and necessary for substantial justice. We have considered Ld. AR’s request and admit the above documents as these documents are crucial to decide the case. We therefore, remit the matter back to the file of A.O to examine these documents and decide the case afresh. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th October, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →