PRAVEEN SIDHARTHAN PILLAI,KOLLAM V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 111/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Praveen Sidharthan Pillai, an individual engaged in real estate, who faced scrutiny from the Income Tax Department due to substantial cash deposits in his bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the entire amount of cash deposited as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also added Rs.4,01,792 towards interest on unexplained credits. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful as no one appeared on his behalf. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not received any notice of hearing from the CIT(A), leading to the decision to remit the case back for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668787 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R. KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

"ITA No.111/Coch/2025 Praveen Sidharthan Pillai, Kollam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.111/Coch/2025 AssessmentYear:2017-18 Praveen Sidharthan Pillai Vrindavanam Thodiyoor North Karunagappally Kollam 690523 Kerala PAN NO : BCMPP4283R Vs. ITO Ward-3 Alappuzha Kerala APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 23.10.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069895655(1) and relates to the AY 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 43 days in filing this appeal before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drawing attention of the bench pointed out that there was reasonable cause behind the non-filing of the appeal within time. 3. Ld. D.R. opposed the prayer of the counsel for the assessee. ITA No.111/Coch/2025 Praveen Sidharthan Pillai, Kollam Page 2 of 3 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay of 43 days and proceed to decide the matter. 5. Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is an individual and resident of Karunagappalli, Kollam. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. For the impugned assessment year, it is alleged that assessee has deposited huge cash in its bank account. The assessee has filed the return of income on 23.1.2018 disclosing an income of Rs.3,74,980/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny for the reason that cash was deposited in the bank of assessee during demonetization period. Asking for the source of the cash, the AO issued various notices to the assessee, in response to which assessee filed certain explanations. However, dissatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the AO added the entire cash deposited u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The AO also made an addition of Rs.4,01,792/-towards interest on the unexplained credits of Rs.61,43,931/-. 6. Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO since nobody appeared from the side of assessee. 7. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh because the assessee has not received any notice of hearing from the office of ld. CIT(A). 8. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. ITA No.111/Coch/2025 Praveen Sidharthan Pillai, Kollam Page 3 of 3 9. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that one more opportunity is to be given to the assessee, in view of the fact that ld. CIT(A)’s order is silent with respect to the service of notice of hearing on the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated 23rd Jun, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin. "