ARUNACHALAM SIVAKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment. The assessee has been directed to substantiate the source of the cash deposits.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 19.00 Lacs in cash into their bank account, which the Assessing Officer (AO) added to their income under Section 69A for lack of satisfactory evidence. The first appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of large cash deposits, and whether the dismissal for non-prosecution warranted a fresh opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 04-10-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15-12-2019.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the first appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution by applying the decision in CIT Vs. M/s. Multi Plan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 and there is no adjudication on merit. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities to substantiate its case. The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to para 1.1 of the impugned order and submitted that as many as six notices were sent to assessee which were not complied with by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had no option but to confirm the assessment. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
From the facts, it emerges that assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny to verify large cash deposits made during the year. It transpired that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.19.00 Lacs in Axis bank account in three tranches, details of which has been extracted by the Ld. AO on Page nos. 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the same. Though the assessee furnished certain explanation, it was not found acceptable by Ld. AO in the absence of satisfactory evidences forthcoming from the assessee. Finally, the amount of Rs.19.00 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee failed to make any representative during first appellate proceedings and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
From the facts, it emerges that the onus to substantiate the cash deposits was completely on the assessee. However, the assessee failed to substantiate the same. Considering the prayer of Ld. AR as well as keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the bench deems it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the assessment is restored back to the file of the Ld. AO for de-novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the source of impugned cash deposits. No other ground has been urged before us.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 07th March, 2024.
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 →- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026