A.THANGARAJ,KUMBAKONAM vs. ITO, KUMBAKONAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2771/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 March 2015AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the AO to decide the issues afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Both parties agreed to remit the matter back to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, dealing in puffed rice, had cash credits in their bank accounts which they failed to explain to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO made additions under Section 68. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions after the assessee provided explanations.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits were justified, and whether the assessee had provided sufficient explanation to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI V. DURGA RAO

Hearing: 25.02.2015Pronounced: 05.03.2015

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2861/Mds/2014
ITA No.2771/Mds/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Revenue and the assessee are in cross appeals filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli, dated 27.08.2014 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is dealing with the business of puffed rice. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed/ 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and after due process, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has found certain cash credits in the assessee’s bank accounts. When the A.O. asked the assessee for explanation, the assessee failed to explain before the A.O.

Therefore the A.O. has invoked provisions of Section 68 of the Act and made additions accordingly.

3.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee filed all the details and gave explanation before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals), after considering the explanation given by the assessee, deleted the addition made by the A.O. in respect of cash credits and sustained the addition in respect of the unaccounted turnover.

4.

On being aggrieved, both Revenue as well as the assessee are before us.

5.

The Ld. D.R. has submitted that the assessee has not filed any details before the A.O. and only filed before the Ld.

6.

On the other hand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee fairly accepted that the issues may be remitted back to the A.O.

7.

We have heard both sides and perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. By considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the A.O. to decide the issues de novo after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →