RAMU LAKSHMANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW10(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1274/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted 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 fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 71.96 Lacs on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition as the assessee failed to appear before them.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings and if the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 06-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12-12-2019.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO has made addition of Rs.71.96 Lacs u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE which represent cash deposits during demonetization period from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 in Andhra Bank, Shenoy Nagar Branch, Chennai. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned addition since the assessee failed to appear during appellate proceedings. 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 also submitted that the submissions were uploaded during appellate proceedings which have not been considered.

3.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal on merits on the basis of material on record.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 8th August, 2024 (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा34 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद6 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे8ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :08-08-2024 DS आदेशकीKितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु@/CIT Chennai. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडEफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →