PUTHOOR ANTONY JOSE,THRISSUR V. ACIT,CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

ITA 822/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Puthoor Antony Jose, an individual engaged in the business of dealing in gold, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the additions made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) to the appellant's income, which included unexplained cash deposits and credits, and undervaluation of closing stock. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without addressing the detailed submissions made by the appellant. The ITAT found this dismissal to be cryptic and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, leading to the remand of the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708578 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• 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: TELMA RAJU
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No.822/Coch/2024 Puthoor Antony Jose vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No.822/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Puthoor Antony Jose .......... Appellant Puthoor House, PO Valappad, Thrissur-680567, Kerala. PAN: ABSPJ1167G vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-2(1), Thrissur, Kerala. Appellant by: Ms. Telma Raju, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “CIT(A)”), dated 24/06/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18. 2 ITA No.822/Coch/2024 Puthoor Antony Jose vs. ACIT 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of dealing in Gold. The Return of Income for the AY 2017-18 on 02/11/2017 disclosing the income of Rs. 38,95,730/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) vide order dated 26/12/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) at Rs.90,96,840/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 43,45,912/- treating the unexplained cash deposits in SIB, Triprayar of Rs. 5,11,507/- and treating the repayment of cash credit loans from Cathlic Syrian Bank of Rs.37,34,405/- as unexplained cash credits. The AO also made addition on account of under valuation of closing stock of Rs. 9,55,198/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the AO grossly erred in treating the re- assessment of Gold Loan as unexplained cash credits despite the fact that the appellant had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the Gold Loan availed and further, making the addition U/s. 145A of the Act despite the fact that the stock was adjusted by including the element of VAT. The appellant had filed detailed submissions before the CIT(A) which are placed before us. However, the CIT(A) without referring to the submissions of the appellant, simply dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic order. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 3 ITA No.822/Coch/2024 Puthoor Antony Jose vs. ACIT 5. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with the affidavit wherein it was submitted that due to ill health of the Auditor dealing with the appellant’s matter, the appeal could not be filed within the due date prescribed under the Act. Considering the reasons adduced by the appellant in its condonation petition, we are of the considered opinion that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit and hence, we hereby condone the delay of 21 days and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the submissions of the appellant that the CIT(A), without referring to the submissions and evidence filed before him, has simply dismissed the appeal by passing the cryptic order. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order adverting to the submissions and evidence adduced before the CIT(A) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4 ITA No.822/Coch/2024 Puthoor Antony Jose vs. ACIT Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 15th July, 2025 okk sps 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 "