Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 10,94,634/- on account of demonetization period deposits. The assessee challenged this addition before the CIT(A), who passed a cryptic and non-speaking order. The assessee has appealed to the Tribunal against the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in proper analysis of facts. Both parties agreed that the matter should be restored to the AO for de novo examination and adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO in respect of demonetized deposits is justified. Whether the CIT(A) order is to be set aside for being non-speaking.
Sections Cited
250, 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Year: 2017-18 Damodaran Suresh, Income Tax Officer, Pro. Sumy Electronic, Vs. Ward-2(1), No.52,MainRoad, Erode Gobichettipalayam-638452. [PAN: AIJPS3460M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee by : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT ुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2024 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/250/2023-24/1063718295(1) dated 30.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 30.03.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 The only issue is regarding an addition of Rs.10,94,634/- made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO noted that the assesse had deposited Rs.24,56,500/- in his bank account during the demonetization period. The Ld. AO compared the said deposits with the data available on ITBA portal, uploaded by assesse, comprising the cash book. It was noted that the same showed cash balance of Rs.13,61,686/-. The Ld. AO proceeded to make an addition of Rs.10,94,634/-( Rs.24,56,500 - Rs.13,61,686).
3.0 We have heard the rival submission in the light of material available on records. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that it is contesting action u/s 263 in this case for the said year. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of authorities below though concurred that the matter may be restored to the Ld. AO for his readjudication. We have noted the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and found it to be total cryptic and non-speaking. The decision has been given by him without appropriately analyzing the facts of the case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we deem it fit to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld. AO in respect of the said impugned addition. Both the parties fairly conceded that the matter can be restored to the file of Ld. AO for examining the issue of Rs.10,94,634/-, de novo, in the light of evidences produced by the assesse.
4.0 The Ld. AO is required to give all necessary opportunities to the assesse before arriving at any conclusion and the assesse shall be required to comply with Ld. AO’s statutory notices. Any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. The grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.
5.0 In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 6th, September-2024.