Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.