BENAZIR BEGAUM,ARIYALUR V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

ITA 2470/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Benazir Begaum, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the additions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy. The additions included unexplained money amounting to Rs.61,65,260 deposited during the demonetization period and disallowed expenses of Rs.8,64,271. The assessee argued that the cash deposits were from legitimate business transactions and that the expenses were substantiated. However, the CIT(A) was not convinced by the additional evidence provided during the appellate proceedings, leading to the filing of the current appeal. The Tribunal found merit in providing another opportunity to the assessee to present her case before the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29280 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल ,लेखा सद˟ एवं माननीय ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2470/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Benazir Begaum, 21,JJUBAIR Indane Gas Suppliers, G.H. Road, Ariyalur Ariyalur Dist. 621 704. [PAN: APPPB 6037G] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Trichy (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) 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/250/2024-25/1066764257(1) dated 16.7.2024. The assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Trichy for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 31.12.2019. 2 ITA No.2470 /Chny/2024 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 06 days. The order of CIT(A) dated 16.07.2024 was communicated to the assessee on 16.07.2024 as per Form 36. The appeal has to be filed on or before 14.09.2024 but was filed only on 20.09.2024. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating that the appeal papers were prepared and handed over to him for signature in the first week of September, 2024. Since he was away from station and returned to his native place only on 16.09.2024, he immediately signed the appeal papers and the same was submitted before the Tribunal on 20.09.2024 with a delay of 06 days. When these facts were confronted to the ld.Addl. CIT-DR, she objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 in ITR-3 on 30.03.2018 declaring taxable income of Rs. 15,93,400/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Several statutory notices/SCN issued by the AO were not responded to by the assessee. After affording the assessee, sufficient opportunity, the AO made the additions of Rs.61,65,260/- being the cash deposited during the demonetization period as Unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s115BBE of the Act and part of the expenses of Rs. 8,64,271/- being not substantiated by the assessee were disallowed by the AO and brought to tax as the income of assessee vide an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated: 31.12.2019. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3 ITA No.2470 /Chny/2024 4. During appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that all the submissions have been uploaded in ITBA portal stating that her annual turnover was Rs.6.68 crores which is totally cash based business. Average monthly turnover will be around Rs.55 lakhs. Moreover Gas dealers were allowed to collect SBN (Specified bank notes) from customers for Gas supply during the demonetization period and sales during the demonetization period was around Rs. 90 Lakhs. Hence it can be easily ascertained that cash deposited into bank accounts during demonetization period is from sale proceeds only. Actual cash deposit in the bank account was Rs.42,32,930/- only in (State Bank of India current account number 32549961101). The assessee also attached Bankers Certificate as proof and no cash deposits were made in any other account. The assessee has also submitted that she has also mentioned in the income tax return that Rs.42,22,930/- was deposited in cash into State Bank of India current account number 32549961101 during demonetization period. Hence, she has honestly declared all the particulars without any intention of under reporting of income. Further with regard to the Disallowances of expenditure for non production of bills / vouchers done on estimated basis, assessee submitted that she was not able to provide the same only because of her of unawareness of the notices. Assessee further submitted that accounts have been duly audited by a Chartered Accountant who had not made any adverse comments. Report of the chartered accountant were also filed before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee prayed that the additions made are without considering the above facts in the assessment order. However, ld. CIT(A) was not convinced. As per the ld. CIT(A) assessee had not 4 ITA No.2470 /Chny/2024 submitted any documents before the AO and thus tried to escape scrutiny by the AO. The appellant has filed written submissions during the course of appellate proceedings alongwith certain documents as mentioned above which is essentially an additional evidence not submitted before the AO. The additional evidence filed was also incomplete and haphazard. Hence, the CIT(A) did not see any reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 61,65,260/- made by the AO as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s115BBE of the Act and apart of the expenses of Rs. 8,64,271/- disallowed by the AO and brought to tax as the income of assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the ld. AO had not properly followed the principles of natural justice in true spirit. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.AO, assessee will prosecute the case in assessment proceedings properly. Per contra, ld.Addl. CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 6. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by both parties before us. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer to prosecute his case with all evidence. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. The Assessing Officer who shall proceed 5 ITA No.2470 /Chny/2024 for denovo assessment after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment as per law. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल) (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated : 25-11-2024 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "