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 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 962/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Associated Electronics, v. Non-Corporate Ward -1(1), 8/98, Race Course, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [PAN: AAEFA-9561-C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 07.02.2024.
The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the AO’s order on the following issues: (i) arriving income @8% of the turnover i.e., Rs.16,02,892/- and :-2-: ITA. No: 962/Chny/2024 (ii) cash deposits treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act.
The brief facts are that the assessee is a firm had not filed a return of income for the AY 2017-18. Based on the information available with the Department, the assessee has total sales of Rs.2,12,98,519/- which includes Rs.12,62,360/- of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 09.03.2018 was issued to assessee to file its return of income. The assessee file return of income for the AY 2017-18 declaring a loss of Rs.32,87,143/- on 23.09.2019. The AO rejected the return of income treating it as invalid since the same was not filed within stipulated time. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the explanations in response to show cause notice issued by the AO. Ignoring the reply filed by the assessee the AO passed the order by adding 8% of the turnover as the income of the assessee and cash deposits during the demonetization period treating it as unexplained investment. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
:-3-: ITA. No: 962/Chny/2024 4. 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 17.12.2019 without considering the merits of the case. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.
The ld.AR stated that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the impugned order without discussing the merits of the case, 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 not adjudicated the appeal based on the merits of the case and has dismissed the appeal. 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 assessee to appear and at liberty to submit the relevant details before the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the case.