M/S. ISWARYA HEALTH CARE, CHENNAI V. ACIT, NON COP CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

MA 91/CHNY/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6556 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मंजुनाथा, जी., लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G., Accountant Member M.P. No. 91/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.447/Chny/2022] Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Iswarya Health Care, 12, 1 st Main Road, Kasthurbai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [PAN:AADFI8643L] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: By means of present Miscellaneous Petition, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 447/Chny/2022 dated 08.03.2023 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. By referring to the petition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ground raised in ground No. 3 has not been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. It was a submission that the Tribunal has not considered the written submissions of the assessee and judicial M.P. No.91/Chny/23 2 pronouncements while concluding the appeal order. It was further submission that the Assessing Officer has simply made the addition of ₹.32,93,571/- without bringing any materials on record to demonstrate that the above addition was in respect of unaccounted income of the petitioner. The ld. Counsel further submitted that failure to consider the decision of Coordinate Bench is a mistake apparent from record in view of the decision in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466 (SC) and prayed to recall and restore the appeal for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that there is no mistake apparent from the record. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.03.2023. The Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] of ₹.32,93,571/-. As per bank statement, the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ₹.76,82,500/-. The cash book filed by the assessee was showing closing cash balance as on 08.11.2016 at ₹.43,88,929/- and for the remaining amount of ₹.32,93,571/-, the assessee could not explain the source either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the ITAT. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under M.P. No.91/Chny/23 3 section 69A of the Act was liable to be sustained. In the written submissions, the assessee has not explained anything about the source for the cash deposit of ₹.32,93,571/- with any piece of material evidence. Moreover, the case law relied upon by the assessee have no application to the facts of the assessee’s case. By considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has observed and held as under: 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the cash deposits of ₹.76,82,500/-, the assessee filed cash book details showing closing cash balance as on 08.11.2016 at ₹.43,88,929/-. However, the assessee could not explain the source for the remaining amount of ₹.32,92,571/- and accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated this amount of ₹.32,93,571/- as unexplained cash deposits of SBN and added to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee could not explain the source for the cash deposits during demonetization period in SBN, the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Before the ITAT also the assessee could not explain the source for the cash deposits made during demonetization period. Accordingly, we sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] and thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 4.1 In view of the above findings of the Tribunal, we do not find any mistake apparent from the record and accordingly, the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the MP filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13 th October, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 13.10.2023 M.P. No.91/Chny/23 4 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.