THE TIRUCHIRAPALLI CONSUMER WHOLESALE STORES LTD,TRICHY vs. DCIT CIRCLE1(1), TRICHY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a consumer co-operative society, filed a return showing a loss. During demonetization, it made significant cash deposits. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained money due to lack of supporting documents and mandatory statutory audit.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions and whether the cash deposits were correctly treated as unexplained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ �यायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.: 967/Chny/2024 िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income The Thiruchirapalli Consumer v. Tax, Wholesale Stores Ltd., Circle -1(1), 1 Dec, EVR Road, Trichy. Puthur, Trichy – 620 017. [PAN:AACFT-8019-J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�क�ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. M. Karunantham, Advocate ��यथ�क�ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. D. HemaBhupal, JCIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 08.03.2024.
The brief facts are that the assessee is a consumer co- operative society and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 admitting a loss of Rs.33,10,746/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was served on 25.09.2018. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits of SBN to the tune of Rs.4,37,44,730/- during demonetization
:-2-: ITA. No:967/Chny/2024 period. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer called for relevant details for which the assessee has not furnished books of accounts and documents in support of claim. The Assessing Officer further noted that no statutory audit was conducted which is mandatory in cooperative society and in absence of plausible evidence the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of Rs.4,37,44,730/- as unexplained money u/s. 68 of the Act and passed an order U/s.143(3) dated 31.12.2019. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
The ld.CIT(A) had issued notices granting opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearing. However, the assessee had not responded. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing an order dated 08.03.2024 by confirming the addition U/s.68 of the Act, made by the Assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.
4. The ld.AR stated that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal exparte, is erroneous in law and prayed for remanding the matter back to the ld.CIT(A) .
The ld.DR did not raise any objections for the same.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is noted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order exparte. To meet the ends of justice, we remit back the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. we direct the ld. CIT(A) to consider the written submissions filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh
:-3-: ITA. No:967/Chny/2024 in accordance with law subject to cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld. CIT(A),whose shall proceed for de novo assessment. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026