MRS. CHINNATHAMPI PALANISAMY ARUL, NAMAKKAL V. ITO, WARD-2, , NAMAKKAL

ITA 763/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Chinnathambi Palanisamy Arul, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had assessed the income of the assessee at \\u20b915,49,172/- based on unexplained cash deposits noted during the financial year 2010-11. The assessee did not respond to various notices, leading to a best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, leading to the decision to remit the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134964 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी. दुगाŊ राव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज कु मार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 763/Chny/2023 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Chinnathambi Palanisamy Arul, Door No. 203 A, Patti Kattuvalavu East, Namagiripet, Rasipuram, Namakkal 637 401, Tamil Nadu. [PAN:AIWPA6103C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Tiruchengode. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : None ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2023 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], Delhi dated 30.05.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to ₹.15,49,172/- in the savings bank account during the financial year 2010-11. However, on verification, the Assessing Officer I.T.A. No. 763/Chny/23 2 found that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year to verify the sources through which the assessee made the deposit. Since the Assessing Officer believed that the income to the extent of ₹.15,49,172/-, being unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee, that have to be chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment within the context and purview of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2018 and served on 31.03.2018. However, the assessee has not filed the return of income. Despite issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act, show cause letter and pre-assessment notice, the assessee did not respond. Accordingly, with the available materials on record, the Assessing Officer completed the best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 01.12.2018 by assessing income of the assessee at ₹.15,49,172/- and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. I.T.A. No. 763/Chny/23 3 4. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, as stated before the ld. CIT(A), the case of the assessee is that the assessee is basically an agriculturist and resided at Village Ariyagoundenpatty, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. The assessee states that his family comprising of father, mother, wife and daughter and all are resided at the above address for the past several years. It was further stated that the family of the assessee was holding 3.80 acres of punjai land and fit for cultivation of banana, tapioca, maize and turmeric and the assessee was carrying agricultural activities. Copy of the patta for the said lands was also filed before the ld. CIT(A) and stated that the net annual agricultural income earned was around ₹.6,00,000/-. Further, the assessee has furnished details towards various deposits. Without obtaining any remand report from the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiry as well as seeking supporting evidences and deciding the issues involved, the ld. CIT(A) concluded the appellate order is not correct. In view of the above facts and circumstances and to meet the ends of natural justice, we set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after obtaining detailed report from the Assessing Officer. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details with I.T.A. No. 763/Chny/23 4 material evidences and convincing explanations before the ld. CIT(A) for consideration. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 th July, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 25.07.2023 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.