PADMAVATHI G,TIRUNELVELI V. ITO, WARD-2, CUDDALORE

ITA 2063/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Padmavathi G, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention arose from the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) assessment, which treated a cash deposit of Rs.23,14,500 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rs.1,01,03,038 as short term capital gain due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence for the cost of acquisition. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision, noting the assessee's non-participation in the proceedings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the submissions made along with the appeal papers and had not adequately addressed the assessee's lack of participation, leading to the decision to remit the case back for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773048 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Keywords: Set aside; Cost of acquisition; Reason to believe

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘सी’ \u000eयायपीठ, चे\u000eनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0015ी मनु क ुमार ग\u0019र, \u000eया\u001aयक सद य एवं \u0015ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद य क े सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2063/Chny/2025 \u001aनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Padmavathi G, 4/265, Kadaiyam Main Road, TIRUNELVELI Tirunelveli IDAIKAL , Tirunelveli – 627 602. Tamil Nadu. vs. ITO, Ward – 2, Cuddalore. [PAN: ANVPP-3133-B] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appellant by : None '(यथ& क) ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha Addl. CIT सुनवाई क) तार ख/Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा क) तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13, vide order dated 27.05.2025. Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No:2063 /Chny/2025 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, had not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2013-13 u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). Based on the information available with the department, a reason to believe was formed that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued with the prior approval of the PCIT, Puducherry. In response to the notice, the assessee filed her return of income on 29.04.2019 and admitted a income of Rs.89,460/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.12.2019 by treating the cash deposit of Rs.23,14,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.1,01,03,038/- under the head short term capital gain, as the assessee has failed to furnish the documentary evidence to explain the cost of acquisition for short term capital gain. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by upholding the order of AO and sustained the additions since the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings by passing an order dated 27.05.2025. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without participation of the assessee and also not considered the submissions made Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No:2063 /Chny/2025 along with the appeal papers. We note that the none appeared before us for representing the assessee’s appeal. 5. Per contra, the ld.DR supported the order of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the case, perused materials available on record, and gone through orders of the authorities below. We note that the AO has passed an order by treating the cash deposit of Rs.23,14,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.1,01,03,038/- under the head short term capital gain, as the assessee has failed to furnish the documentary evidence to explain the cost of acquisition for short term capital gain. The same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) without the participation of the assessee in the appellate proceedings. We note that ld.CIT(A) had given 3 (Three) opportunities from 27.12.2020 to 13.03.2025 as per page No.3 of the order by sending notices to the assessee and the assessee has not responded to any of the notices. 7. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A), to meet the ends of justice we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to be diligent during the appellate proceedings and submit a written submission along with all relevant supporting documents before the ld. CIT(A) at the earliest opportunity without seeking unnecessary adjournment. Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA. No:2063 /Chny/2025 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 24th September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार ग\u0019र) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) \u000eया\u001aयक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u000eनई/Chennai, -दनांक/Dated, the 24th September, 2025 sp आदेश क) '\u001aत/ल0प अ1े0षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant 2. '(यथ&/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु2त/CIT 4. 0वभागीय '\u001aत\u001aन ध/DR 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "