CHOKKALINGAM KUMAR,THIRUVANNAMALAI V. .ITO, WARD-1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

ITA 2637/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Chokkalingam Kumar, an individual engaged in the business of trading rice, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention arose from the Assessing Officer's decision to tax Rs. 15,01,500 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, due to deposits made in Specified Bank Notes during the demonetization period. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the assessment process, particularly the inadequate opportunity given to the assessee to present evidence and documents. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the previous order and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29304 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D. KOMALI KRISHNA; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S. GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ 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.2637/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Chokkalingam Kumar, 41/70, Sattanaicken Street, Thiruvannamalai 606 601. [PAN: BXDPK 8617G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Thiruvannamalai. (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS CIT. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (NFAC), DELHI [CIT(A)] dated 16.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted delay of 01 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated in the condonation application which is supported by an affidavit of Assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 ITA No.2637 /Chny/2024 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is an individual and engaged in the business of trading in rice in the name and style of Ms Sri Sakthi Traders. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14.02.2018 calling for filing of the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. In response to the above notice, the Appellant filed the return of income electronically on 23.09.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.3,86,220/-. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer had observed that the Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.15,01,500/- during the demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes. The Appellant during the assessment proceedings had submitted that the cash sales made prior to demonetization were the source for deposits made in Specified Bank Notes. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 04.12.2019, the Assessing Officer had rejected the explanations offered by the Appellant and had brought to tax an amount of Rs. 15,01,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same at the rate of 60 percent by invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The Appellant in this appeal vehemently objects to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tiruvannamalai dated 04.12.2019. Assessee further challenged the ex-parte order of assessment u/s 144 of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO on merits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the AO has not properly served notices or given sufficient time to file evidence and documents to substantiate his explanation. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual 3 ITA No.2637 /Chny/2024 defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not properly represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment on merits. The Ld.AO shall proceed for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence, confirmations and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th December, 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 : 20-12-2024 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 "