MYDHEEN KHAN ABITHABEEVI ,NEYYATTINKARA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 734/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mydeheen Khan Abithabeevi, an individual engaged in the business of dealing in cement, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appellant's return of income was initially assessed by the ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trivandrum, who made a significant addition to the appellant's declared income, attributing it to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) upheld this assessment, leading to the current appeal. The tribunal noted procedural lapses in the handling of the appellant's case by the CIT(A), specifically the failure to send notices to the correct email ID, which impeded the appellant's ability to respond and participate in the appeal process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315998 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARVATHY AMMAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 734/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mydeheen Khan Abithabeevi .......... Appellant 20/520 Suhara Nivas, Amaravila Neyattinkara, Trivandrum 695122 [PAN: ASMPK4275H] vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Trivandrum Appellant by: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 11.09.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of dealing in cement. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 20.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 21,42,230/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 2 ITA No. 734/Coch/2023 Mydeheen Khan Abithabeevi was completed by the ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trivandrum (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vie order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 2,82,13,000/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 2,60,70,775/- being the cash deposits made in specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetisation period, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds of the business. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the appellant had failed to substantiate the abnormal increase in cash balance on 09.11.2016 even before the CIT(A), despite granting several opportunities. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The appellant could not respond to the hearing notices issued by the CIT(A), since the notices were sent by the CIT(A) on wrong email ID. It is submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. 3 ITA No. 734/Coch/2023 Mydeheen Khan Abithabeevi 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR had no serious objection to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) had passed exparte order for non- prosecution. We are satisfied with the reasons stated for non- response before the CIT(A) and, therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated:14th May, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "