RAVI POULTRY FARM,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAMAKKAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment, as the AO had not verified the source of the cash deposit.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a poultry farm, deposited Rs. 54,50,000 during demonetisation, claiming it was from their cash balance. The AO added Rs. 13,66,500 as unexplained cash deposit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 656 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether the AO properly verified the source of cash deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 05.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee is a partnership firm, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 08.10.2017 admitting a total
:-2-: ITA. No: 2153/Chny/2024 income of Rs.2,65,080/- from the business of layer poultry farm. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the details and documents in support of the return of income along with a cash balance of Rs.62,07,249/- as on 8/11/2016 in the cash book and assessee has claimed that the same is sources for making deposit of SBN of Rs.54,50,000/- during the demonetisation period. The AO accepted cash deposit made in SBN upto 12/11/2016 and added Rs.13,66,500/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act by passing an order u/s.143(3) dated 28/11/2019.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC with a delay.
At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee took us through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in para 5.1.1 & 5.1.2, wherein the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 656 days in filing the appeal. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay is mostly covered by Corona period and dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay by passing the order dated 05.07.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
:-3-: ITA. No: 2153/Chny/2024
The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a firm and having a business of poultry farm and provided the entire details of the source for cash deposit during the demonetisation period before the AO during the assessment proceedings. However, the AO has failed to appreciate the same and has passed an order by bringing an amount of Rs.13,66,500/- to tax tax u/s. 69A of the Act and thereby prayed for remanding the case to AO for denovo assessment by setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which has been dismissed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessment order passed by the AO by bringing SBN Deposits of Rs.13,66,500/- on 16.11.2016 in the bank account to tax u/s. 69A of the Act, eventhough the assessee has filed a cash book showing sufficient source of cash for such deposit. We note that the ld.CIT(A) also has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Since, the AO has not verified the source of cash deposit filed by :-4-: ITA. No: 2153/Chny/2024 the assessee during the assessment proceedings, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to frame the assessment order denovo in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026