MR. MOORTHY,THENI V. ITO, WARD-1, THENI

ITA 464/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Moorthy against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.1,85,00,300 as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, treated under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee faced delays in compliance due to personal circumstances, which were not willful. Both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to non-compliance with statutory notices. The Tribunal found the AO's order to be non-speaking and lacking in detailed facts, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312309 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOWTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D.ANAND
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज क े, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.464/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Mr.Moorthy, No.70/5, 17th Kottu Street, Varsanadu, Theni, Tamil Nadu-625 579. [PAN: AKLPM3306Q] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Theni (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1062985073(1) dated 20.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 259 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse was not aware that the order of NFAC was uploaded on the Income Tax portal and also that the same was not ITA No. 464/Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 4 communicated through email. It was submitted that the assessee learnt of the order sometimes in Feb-2025 when he approached his auditor on the status of his appeal. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the Ld.AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. AR submitted that it was prevented by genuine personal circumstances to make timely compliances to the statutory notices. It was accordingly requested that one last opportunity be given to present its case. The Ld. AR gave personal assurance that all compliances to the statutory notices would now be made. 3.0 The Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the only issue in the case is the addition of Rs.1,85,00,300/- made by the Ld.AO u/s 69A treating the cash deposits in bank account, during demonetization period, as ITA No. 464/Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 4 unexplained. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order, he had given opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition u/s 144. We have however noted that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee. We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of deposits in assessee’s bank account lies at the core of the controversy. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate de novo and issue a speaking order. He may call for remand report from the Ld.AO if deemed necessary. The assessee shall make due compliance to the statutory notices issued and any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 464/Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 4 5.0 In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 2nd , May -2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाध्यक्ष / vice president Sd/- (अधिताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 2nd , May -2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Madurai 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF "