VENKATESAN, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 8(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in wholesale vegetable and fruit trading, had significant cash deposits of Rs. 2,77,93,600/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount as unexplained money under Section 69A after the assessee failed to file a return in response to a notice under Section 148. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and addition of unexplained cash deposits were justified without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The primary issue was the assessee's failure to respond to notices and the subsequent best judgment assessment.
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: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए, �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी महावीर �सह,उपा�य� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल,लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ Year:2017-2018 Shri Venkatesan, The Income Tax Officer, No.T/D 122, Koyambedu, v. Non Corporate Ward 8(1) Chennai 600092. Chennai. PAN: AADPV 2269F (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.03.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057134219 (1) dated 17.10.2023. The assessment was framed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18 vide order dated 29.03.2022.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual engaged in business of wholesale trading in vegetable and fruits. As per the information received in insight portal under the category ’’CRIU/VRU High risk cases, it was found that assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.2,77,93,600/-. A notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2021. However, assessee did not file return of income in response to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. As assessee failed to file the return of income, the ld. Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.2,77,93,600/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO for the reason that the assessee has not filed any reply to the notices issued. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us.
Now before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act for assessing the cash deposits made by assessee amounting to 3 Rs.2,77,93,600/- and he requested to setting aside the appeal to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer.
When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior Departmental Representative, he objected to setting aside of this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for the reason that the AO as well as CIT(A) has provided many opportunities but the assessee did not avail for the reasons best known to him.
We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee was provided many opportunities by both the authorities below but assessee did not avail the opportunities but in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that to do substantial justice one more opportunity be provided to the assessee to represent the true and clear facts before the AO and hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities i.e., the AO and the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the AO with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras on or before 26.04.2024. The assessee will pay this cost and produce the receipt before the AO. In term of the above, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and matter restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard
4 to the assessee and assessee is also directed to represent his case as and when notice is issued, otherwise adverse view can be taken against the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 12th March, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026