KOMARASAMI MURUGESAN,COIMBATORE V. DCIT, NCC-2, COIMBATORE

ITA 1169/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Komarasami Murugesan against the order of the CIT(A), which pertained to the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention was the erroneous consideration of irrelevant material by the CIT(A) in deciding the appeal, specifically the reliance on a Stay Application instead of the substantive written submissions supporting the grounds of appeal. Additionally, the AO had made an addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding unexplained cash deposits exceeding ₹5 Crores in the assessee's bank account, without a hearing. The Tribunal noted a similar precedent for AY 2017-18 where the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment for a de novo assessment after hearing the assessee. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment after proper verification of the facts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717274 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIPIN; C.N.
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Application of stay

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1169/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komarasami Murugesan, Door No.3, Saravanampatty, Andiappadevar Layout, Sisuvasapuram, Coimbatore-641 035. v. The DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore. [PAN: ANGPM 8623 A] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. Bipin, C.N., CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 05.02.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2013-14. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1169/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Komarasami Murugesan :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed impugned order considering irrelevant material and omitted to consider the relevant material and therefore, action of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous. Drawing our attention to Para No.5.1 of the impugned order, he brought to our notice that though the written- submissions filed by the assessee has been reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A), but the contents of which was pertaining to Stay Application filed before the Ld.CIT(A) against the demand. And based on the aforesaid contents of the Stay Application, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have decided the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and ignored the main written- submissions filed by the assessee in support of grounds of appeal raised before him. The assertion made by the Ld.AR couldn’t be rebutted by the Ld.DR. 3. The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that in the present case, the AO has made the addition u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) by taking note of the cash deposits of more than ₹5 Crs. in the assessee’s bank account and has passed ex- parte order (without hearing the assessee) by making addition of the entire cash deposits. According to the Ld.AR, similar action was taken for AY 2017-18, wherein, also the AO has added the entire cash deposits in his bank account which was also decided by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by order dated 24.02.2025, wherein he was pleased to set aside the assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1169/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Komarasami Murugesan :: 3 :: order back to the file of the AO with a direction to frame de novo assessment after hearing the assessee and placed a copy of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order for AY 2017-18. In that case for AY 2017-18, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have appreciated the assessee’s contentions that nature and source of cash deposits need to be verified and such an exercise requires extensive factual verification and therefore, he was pleased to set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass fresh assessment. In view of the action taken by the Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 and similar situation prevails for AY 2013-14, the Ld.AR prays that the similar action should have been ordered by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed for restoring the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 5. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR undertakes to appear and file all the details to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account. 6. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous since the Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating the grounds of appeal has considered irrelevant material and dismissed the grounds of appeal of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1169/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Komarasami Murugesan :: 4 :: In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has reproduced the contents of the written submissions praying for stay of demand filed before him and thereafter, decided the grounds of appeal of the assessee which is erroneous, since the assessee had filed detailed written submissions supporting the grounds of appeal which has been ignored by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is found to be erroneous and therefore, it is set aside. Further, we note that in this case also, the AO has passed ex parte order and has added the entire deposits in bank, which requires factual verification. Hence, we are of the view that for the ends of justice and fair-play, the assessment should be restored back to the file of the AO since we find that details of the nature and source of cash deposits filed by assessee require factual verification and the AO is only equipped to do so. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all the relevant documents and written submissions, if any, to support the nature and source of cash deposits in his bank account without fail; and after hearing the assessee, the AO to frame the assessment in accordance to law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1169/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Komarasami Murugesan :: 5 :: 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 14th day of August, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 14th August, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "