MUTHUKRISHNAN KARUNANIDHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD(2) VELLORE, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2171/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merit and the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 10,50,000/- in cash in a post office during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 69A as the assessee could not explain the source of the deposit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the evidence and whether the assessee was denied natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 21.10.2024Pronounced: 21.10.2024

Year: 2017-18 Muthukrishnan Karunanidhi, The Income Tax Officer, C/o. Sendamarai Kannan, Vs. Ward(2), Advocate, 104, 22nd Street, Vellore. Ashtalakshmi Nagar, Alappakkam, Chennai – 600 116. [PAN: CEKPK 2164K] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, Advocate HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 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, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 22.03.2024 confirming the addition of cash deposits during demonetization period of Rs.10,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). office during demonetization period i.e., from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The assessee is a partner in M/s. M.K. Constructions and has deposited Rs. 10,50,000/- in post office during the demonetization period. The assessee before the A.O has not been able to explain the source of cash deposit and therefore, the A.O has made the addition u/s. 69A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating that during the course of appellate proceedings, no reply has been filed by the assessee giving concrete impression that the assessee has nothing to say with regard to the unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period and confirmed the addition.

3.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the copy of five promissory notes enclosed with Form-35 explaining source of deposit and dismissed the appeal without considering the merit.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without 3 -: considering the merit. The assessee has contended that he has submitted documentary evidence in support of its contention along with Form-35, which has not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A). We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the Assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st 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 →