RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHAKRAN, SALEM V. ITO, WARD1(9), SALEM

ITA 156/CHNY/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2010 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ायपीठ, चे ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी वी दुगा राव ाियक सद एवं ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम$ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.156/Chny/2021 िनधा रण वष /Assess men t Year:2017-18 Shri Ramakrishnan Prabakaran, 6/1/64, Tharamangalam Main Road, Jalakandapurammettur, Salem – 636 501. [PAN: ATQPP 5883P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(9), Salem. (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Dat e of h eari n g : 12.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /D at e of P r ono unc em ent : 18.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO,, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi dated 15.04.2021 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In this case, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 4,10,500/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- on various dates. When the Assessing Officer (A.O) was asked the assessee, the assessee has submitted that the above money was earned out of his mother’s saree business. The Ld. Counsel for the I.T.A. I.T.A.I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.No. No.156 156156 156/ // /Chny ChnyChny Chny/ // /20 2020 202 22 21 11 1 2 assessee also submitted that the bank account is a joint account all the transactions pertain to his mother and not related to him. The A.O has not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and addition was made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O more or less by following the same view of the A.O. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass an order in accordance with law after considering the detailed explanation given by the assessee. I.T.A. I.T.A.I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.No. No.156 156156 156/ // /Chny ChnyChny Chny/ // /20 2020 202 22 21 11 1 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 18 th May, 2022 in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated 18.05.2022 EDN/- आदेश की 'ितिलिप अ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु/ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु//CIT, 5. िवभागीय 'ितिनिध/DR & 6. गाड फाईल/GF.