What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT accepted the assessee's plea for another opportunity and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's business income and cash deposits. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment as the assessee could not substantiate its case. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A) regarding additions made to business income and cash deposits.

Muthalif Shajahan, Madurai vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी एबी टी. वक�, �ाियक सद" एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ'वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम)। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mr. Muthalif Shajahan ITO बनाम/ Shop No.C-30, Non-Corporate Ward-1(8) Mattuthavani Vaniga Valagam, Madurai. Vs. Madurai-625 007. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ALIPS-2022-D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N.Vijay Kumar (CA) – Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 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 Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [CIT(A)] dated 27-02-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 11-12-2019. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition under the head Business income and made another addition of cash deposit for Rs.6.50 Lacs. During first appeal, the assessee could not substantiate its case which resulted into confirmation of assessment.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR has placed on record certain documents which include affidavit of assessee’s wife in support of impugned cash deposits. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) which has been opposed by revenue.

Accepting the plea of Ld. AR, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in the light of submissions made by Ld. AR before us. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024

MUTHALIF SHAJAHAN,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW1(8), MADURAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments