Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerns the addition of Rs.41.72 Lacs in cash deposited during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition as the assessee failed to provide representation despite opportunities.
Held
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to provide another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to represent the source of cash deposits and whether the addition made by the AO was justified.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Sarojini Enterprises ITO बनाम/ 52, Naicker New Street, Non-Corporate Ward-1(7) Vs. Madurai-625 001. Madurai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACLFS-4089-C (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate) - Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) - Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 09-04-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 28-12-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee confirmation of addition of Rs.41.72 Lacs being cash deposited during demonetization period. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same since the assessee failed to make any representation therein despite being provided with various opportunities of hearing. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee could substantiate the source of cash deposits.
Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd September, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे5ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-09-2024 DS आदेशकीJितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु>/CIT Madurai. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडCफाईल/GF