KAMALANATHAN,VELLORE V. ITO, WARD-1, VELLORE

ITA 2109/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Kamalanathan, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The original assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Vellore, for the assessment year 2017-18 under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,88,31,144 during the financial year 2016-17, including Rs.34,32,587 deposited during the demonetization period. The assessee did not respond to several notices, leading to an addition of Rs.24,80,720 to his income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on merits despite the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not properly followed and granted a de novo hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472449 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWIN D. GOWDA; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ (SMC) 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.2109/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017 -2018) Kamalanathan, 91, Soullur Vill, Paradesipatti, Thirupattur, Vellore 635 654. [PAN: CTXPK 7826E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Vellore (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, C.A. Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 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/250/2024-25/1066632389(1) dated 12.07.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Vellore for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 18.04.2023. 2 ITA No.2109/Chny/2024 2. The ld. Assessing Officer based on information available on record found that the assessee has made cash deposits during the FY 2016-17 to the extent of Rs.1,88,31,144/- which includes cash deposits made during demonetization period to the extent of Rs.34,32,587/-. Hence, the assessee has to file the return of income for AY 2017-18 and has to explain the sources of cash deposits made during the F.Y. 2016-17 to the extent of Rs. 1,88,31,144/-. Subsequently, the assessment was re- opened u/s.147 of the IT Act, after getting approval from the Addl. Commissioner of income tax, Vellore range, Vellore. A notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee on 23.06.2021. Further several notices were issued to the assessee by the ld. Assessing Officer, however there was no response from assessee. Hence, ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.24,80,720/- and completed the assessment. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits, although assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) despite eight notices. Assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) 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. 3 ITA No.2109/Chny/2024 5. 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. 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 adjudication of appeal. The Assessing Officer who shall proceed for denovo adjudication of appeal 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. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of October, 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 : 23-10-2024 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 "