KRISHNAN MOHAN,TIRUPATTUR V. ITO, WARD-2, VELLORE

ITA 2147/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Krishnan Mohan, an individual engaged in the business of textiles and paddy, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2017-18, where the Assessing Officer had added a sum of Rs.1,33,48,250 as unexplained money under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and taxed it under section 115BBE. The addition was based on substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which the Assessing Officer found inadequately explained. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with multiple notices during the appellate proceedings but decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of the assessee's submissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29905 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D.ANAND
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी एस एस िव᳡नेᮢ रिव, ᭠याियक सद᭭य एवं ᮰ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2147/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Krishnan Mohan, No. 12, Pudupet Road, Tirupattur, Tirupatur Dist – 635 601. [PAN: AHIPM-0814-B] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Vellore. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.06.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 721 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reason that due to ill-health the delay in :-2-: ITA. No: 2147/Chny/2024 filing the appeal has happened. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee is an individual carrying on the business of textiles and paddy in Tirupattur. The assessee filed his return of income on 18.11.2017 by admitting an income of Rs.9,71,550/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued. In response, the assessee has filed financials, bank statements, VAT returns, Audit reports etc before the Assessing Officer. After verification of bank statements, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the financial year 2016-17, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,33,48,250/- into his Canara Bank account and explained that the same has been made out of cash sales and amount withdrawn from the bank. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation and made an addition u/s. 69 of the Act as unexplained money and brought to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act to the returned income by passing order u/s. 143(3) of the Act :-3-: ITA. No: 2147/Chny/2024 dated 28.12.2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. The ld.AR took us through the Para 4 of the ld.CIT(A) order, wherein seven opportunities were given by issuing notices to the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings as detailed below: “4. Non-compliance : This appeal was filed on 04.02.2020 and after rolling out the Faceless Appeal Scheme, first notice of hearing in this case was issued on 30.12.2020 seeking compliance by 14.01.2021. However, there was neither any response on the prescribed date nor any submission was filed. In fact the appellant has not at all complied during the appellate proceedings. Following notice of hearing/opportunities were given to appellant to represent his case: Sl.No Date of issue Date of compliance Remarks 1 30.12.2020 14.01.2021 No response or submission received 2 12.11.2021 22.11.2021 No response or submission received 3 29.11.2021 06.12.2021 No response or submission received 4 12.01.2022 19.01.2022 No response or submission received 5 07.02.2022 14.02.2022 No response or submission received 6 02.03.2022 10.03.2022 No response or submission received 7 01.06.2022 08.06.2022 No response or submission received :-4-: ITA. No: 2147/Chny/2024 But the assessee has failed to comply with any of the notices. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had passed order dated 24.06.2022 by confirming the Assessing Officer’s order with the available details and records in the file. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed all the details of financials, audit report, bank statement before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the same and prayed for remanding the file back to the Assessing Officer for furnishing the details and source of cash deposits made during the financial year 2016-17. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR, argued that the assessee was negligent and had not even filed a return of income even after issuing notice. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the Assessing Officer has passed an order by making an addition of Rs.1,33,48,250/- without considering any kind of expenditure. The ld.CIT(A) also has confirmed the :-5-: ITA. No: 2147/Chny/2024 Assessing Officer’s order without any participation of the assessee. As prayed by the ld.AR and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 23rd October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (एस एस िवʷनेũ रिव) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 23rd October, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT - Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "