ALAGAPPAN SUNDARESAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-2(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2360/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Alagappan Sundaresan, the appellant, who contested the additions made to his income by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act, due to substantial cash deposits in his bank account during the assessment year 2013-14. Initially, the Assessing Officer added Rs.7,56,79,333 to the assessee's income, which was upheld by the CIT(A) despite the assessee's non-participation in the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice by upholding the assessment without the assessee's participation and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29916 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ के, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2360/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Alagappan Sundaresan, 3/5, Nattu Muthu Kumarappa Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [PAN: BQOPS-7760-L] v. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 2(4), Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 31.03.2014, declaring a total income of :-2-: ITA. No: 2360/Chny/2024 Rs.11,18,390/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his bank account and framed an assessment by making an addition of Rs.7,56,79,333/- u/s. 68 & 69 of the Act by passing order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. However, the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings as stated by the ld.CIT(A) in Para 6.1 of the order dated 09.07.2024 which reads as under: “6. Determination and Decision : 6.1 It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner a number of notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant, viz. Communications dated 24.02.2021, 28.12.2022, 13.01.2023, 01.06.2023, 19.06.2023 and 06.05.2024. However, there evidently has been no response from the appellant till date barring the above submissions filed prior to migration of appeal to NFAC without any cogent evidences. There is no gain saying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to purposefully and co- operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appellant's compliance or. rather lack of it, the appellant has not even bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner. Hence, in view of the aforesaid total non-compliance/non prosecution, of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated' and disposed off, as under, ex- parte, primarily on the basis documentation available on record.” and passed an exparte order by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. :-3-: ITA. No: 2360/Chny/2024 3. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the ld.CIT(A) has upheld the assessment without the participation of the assessee in the appellate proceedings and hence, there is a violation of principle of natural justice and fair play. Since, the assessment involves justification of cash deposits, bank credits, source for the chits, purchase of property etc., the ld.AR for the assessee prayed for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. 4. Per contra, the ld.DR stated that the assessee is negligent and not furnished any of the details during the assessment proceedings after the file has been migrated to NFAC. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the order without participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings, and hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and we note that the issues involved in the additions made by the Assessing Officer requires furnishing of various books of accounts and other records and hence, we deem it fit to remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) :-4-: ITA. No: 2360/Chny/2024 and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 22nd November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 22nd November, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT – Chennai 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "