RAJENDRAN MALATHI,DHARMAPURI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to a cost payment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was completed under Section 144, with additions made for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to provide explanations to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the Assessing Officer's order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal, amongst which only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without there being proper opportunity to the assessee.
3. At the outset, we note that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] determining total income of the assessee at ₹.1,81,43,300/- as against income of ₹.17,33,800/-, inter alia, making addition on account of unexplained cash deposited during the period of demonetization treating the same as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order at page 5, we note that the Assessing Officer held that the assessee neither complied with the show cause notice issued on 08.12.2019 nor furnished any information or explanation, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment according to his best judgement in the absence of any explanation from the assessee. Likewise, on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 6.2 page No. 6, clearly shows that the assessee did not file any submissions/documentary evidences before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman submits that the assessee did not furnish any evidence during the course of assessment proceedings since he was under the impression that the assessee being proprietor of M/s. Sivaraman Indian Gas Service and it comes under the exempted category. The ld. AR requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case if the Tribunal afford an opportunity.
The ld. DR Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT reported objection that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) given many opportunities to the assessee, as the assessee failed to utilize the same.
As discussed above, we note from the assessment order as well as impugned order, it is established that there was no opportunity for the assessee in prosecuting his case, but, however, on the undertaken given by the ld. AR that the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the Assessing Officer without fail, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration afresh subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- towards cost in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the Assessing Officer. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim and the Assessing Officer shall conduct the assessment proceedings de novo. Thus, grounds Nos. 1 to 5 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24th July, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- 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
