REVATHI KUMARI SAMINATHAN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), TPR , TPR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition without considering cash withdrawals and that the CIT(A) also failed to examine cash withdrawals and the source of the deposit. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in an ex-parte order under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2011-12. The AO had reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee deposited this amount in an SBI account and did not file a return or respond to notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO for cash deposits is justified without considering withdrawals and the source of income, and whether the assessee was afforded natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 10.11.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order dated 27.12.2018. :- 2 -:
The only effective ground in this appeal of assessee is against confirming the addition on cash deposit of Rs. 28,00,000/- in the bank account in the ex-parte order passed u/s. 144 of the Act.
The brief facts of the case are that the A.O has reopened the assessment on the basis of information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 28,00,000/- in the saving bank account of SBI and has not filed return of income. The assessee did not file the return and did not responded to the notices and therefore, the A.O has made addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- in the total income. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as rejecting the assessee’s submission that the source of cash deposit has been agriculture income.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee has argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the cash deposit without considering the cash withdrawal in the bank account. The Ld. AR drawn our attention to the bank statement and to the bank entry that there is sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited on 24.09.2010 by the transfer from her fixed deposit account. The Ld. AR has also brought in our notice that various withdrawal which has not been considered while adding the deposits as unexplained. The Ld. A.R has argued that it is :- 3 -: the responsibility of A.O to compute the correct income and therefore, the matter may be sent back to A.O for determining the correct income.
The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We agree with the submissions of the assessee that the A.O in the ex-parte order has made addition on cash deposits on various dates without considering the withdrawal. The Ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the cash withdrawal and has also not examined the source of cash deposit. 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 A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the assessment order and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. :- 4 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 18th September, 2024. (एबी टी. वक") (जगदीश) (Jagadish) (ABY. T. Varkey) लेखा सद! /Accountant Member "ाियक सद! / Judicial Member चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 18th September, 2024. EDN/-
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026