S. PADMA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 1(3), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits, upholding the principle of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 48,62,800/- in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 28,36,650/- as unexplained investment under Section 69. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) provided a proper opportunity to the assessee to present evidence regarding the source of cash deposits and whether the submissions were adequately considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल ,लेखा सद� एवं माननीय �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� के सम�। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Smt. S. Padma, Non Corporate Ward 1(3) 25/3, Old No.9/3, Chennai. Chari Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN: AHLPP0997M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : None ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 14.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-2018.
The registry has noted 87 days delay in filing the appeal. Considering the days of delay and reasons given in affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
In the grounds of appeal, appellant has taken 11 argumentative grounds however, we observe that main ground is that the present appeal may be set aside to ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication as the ld.CIT(A) has neither given proper opportunity to prosecute the appeal nor considered the submissions of the assessee regarding the sources for the cash deposits.
Brief facts are that the Assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 26.01.2018, declaring the total income at Rs.9,04,290/-. The assessee is running a business of sale of cameras used for the purpose of studio, in the name and style of M/s Ratna Photo Impex Centre. During the year under consideration, the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.48,62,800/- with SBI, Triplicane branch, Chennai. Assessing officer (In short ‘AO’) during the course of assessment proceedings added the cash deposits in demonetised currency of Rs.28,36,650/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the assessment on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us.
Before us, none appeared for the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities however, he did not seriously object to the ground of the assessee for fresh adjudication by ld. CIT(A) in the light of ground no.2.
Though we appreciate the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the controversy regarding considering of documents before ld.CIT(A) and the principle of natural justice, it is a fit case to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit all such documents or evidence to substantiate the source for the cash deposits in SBI Bank. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of appeal a fresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with complete information as per law, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y.2017-18 is allowed in above terms for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of July, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026