KAILASAM PILLAI SARAVANAN, TRICHY V. ITO WARD-1(1), TRICHY

ITA 225/CHNY/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3125 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी महावीर सह, उपा य एवं डॉ दीपक पी. रपोटे, लेखा सद य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.225/Chny/2022 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailasam Pillai Saravanan, No.6/90, North Street, Elurpatti, Thottiyam, Trichy – 621 215. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Trichy. [PAN: BXOPS-8501-G] ( अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : None यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2022 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in Appeal No.CIT(A), Tiruchirapalli-1/10020/2020-21 dated 29.03.2022. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Trichy for the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18 u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). ITA No.225/Chny/2022 :- 2 -: 2. We have heard Ld. Sr. D.R and gone through the facts of this case, we also noted that the assessee made request for adjournment, which was rejected by the Bench after going through the case records. We have gone through the order of CIT(A) and noted that the CIT(A)’s adjudication on the issue of addition of demonetized cash deposited in assessee’s bank account i.e., Indian Bank, Meiakkalanaickenpatti was not at all examined and decided except discussion of some case laws of legal aspect. The CIT(A) has not at all discussed the fact and simpliciter confirmed the assessment order vide Para 9.3, which reads as under: “9.3 Considering the above factual matrix of the case despite being given ample opportunities during assessment and appellate proceedings, failed to offer any, explanation about the nature and source of the cash deposit amounting to Rs. 60,42,400/- in bank account. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 60,42,400/- is confirmed. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 3. When these facts are confronted to Ld. Sr. D.R, he could not controvert the above factual situation, but, he relied on the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have gone through the assessment order and noted that the assessment order is exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act and it means that the assessee was never allowed opportunity to provide the evidences or prove his case for cash deposit amounting to Rs. 60,42,400/-. In term of the above, in the interest of natural justice to ITA No.225/Chny/2022 :- 3 -: afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (डॉ दीपक पी. रपोटे) (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) लेखा लेखालेखा लेखा सद य सद यसद य सद य /Accountant Member (महावीर िसंह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा / Vice President चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 26 th August, 2022. EDN/- आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF