RAVI POULTRY FARM,NAMAKKAL V. ITO, WARD-2, NAMAKKAL

ITA 2153/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ravi Poultry Farm, a partnership firm engaged in the business of a layer poultry farm, which filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2017-18, where the firm reported an income of Rs.2,65,080 and a cash balance of Rs.62,07,249, claiming it was sourced for making a deposit of SBN during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer accepted the cash deposit made up to 12/11/2016 but added Rs.13,66,500 as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without condoning a significant delay, which was largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough re-examination of the sources of the cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29907 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATRAMAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी एस एस िव᳡नेᮢ रिव, ᭠याियक सद᭭य एवं ᮰ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2153/Chny/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Poultry Farm, 2-A, Mallampalayam, Arasanatham Post, Namakkal – 637 020. [PAN: AANFR-4029-B] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Namakkal. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 05.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 08.10.2017 admitting a total :-2-: ITA. No: 2153/Chny/2024 income of Rs.2,65,080/- from the business of layer poultry farm. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the details and documents in support of the return of income along with a cash balance of Rs.62,07,249/- as on 8/11/2016 in the cash book and assessee has claimed that the same is sources for making deposit of SBN of Rs.54,50,000/- during the demonetisation period. The AO accepted cash deposit made in SBN upto 12/11/2016 and added Rs.13,66,500/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act by passing an order u/s.143(3) dated 28/11/2019. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC with a delay. 4. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee took us through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in para 5.1.1 & 5.1.2, wherein the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 656 days in filing the appeal. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay is mostly covered by Corona period and dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay by passing the order dated 05.07.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. :-3-: ITA. No: 2153/Chny/2024 5. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a firm and having a business of poultry farm and provided the entire details of the source for cash deposit during the demonetisation period before the AO during the assessment proceedings. However, the AO has failed to appreciate the same and has passed an order by bringing an amount of Rs.13,66,500/- to tax tax u/s. 69A of the Act and thereby prayed for remanding the case to AO for denovo assessment by setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which has been dismissed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessment order passed by the AO by bringing SBN Deposits of Rs.13,66,500/- on 16.11.2016 in the bank account to tax u/s. 69A of the Act, eventhough the assessee has filed a cash book showing sufficient source of cash for such deposit. We note that the ld.CIT(A) also has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Since, the AO has not verified the source of cash deposit filed by :-4-: ITA. No: 2153/Chny/2024 the assessee during the assessment proceedings, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to frame the assessment order denovo in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 23rd October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (एस एस िवʷनेũ रिव) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 23rd October, 2024 JPV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT - Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "