SABU JOSEPH,KOTTAYAM V. ITO, WARD 4 KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

ITA 756/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sabu Joseph, an individual engaged in the business of a franchise of Vodafone Idea Ltd., who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)), for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention arose from the Income Tax Officer's (AO) assessment, which included a significant addition to the appellant's income due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, rejecting the additional evidence provided by the appellant, which led to the current appeal. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s refusal to admit the additional evidence unreasonable and remitted the case back for a re-evaluation on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23406 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• 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: JIJO
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• 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. 756/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sabu Joseph .......... Appellant Kachanolickal Building, Paduva Akalakunnam, Kottayam 686564 [PAN: AKKPJ3906E] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 .......... Respondent Public Library Building, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 Appellant by: Shri Jijo, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025 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 31.08.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of franchise of Vodafone Idea Ltd. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 06.11.2017declaring income of Rs. 4,10,100/-. Against the said return of income, the 2 ITA No. 756/Coch/2023 Sabu Joseph assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kottayam (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 31.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 19,10,500/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 15,00,500/- being cash deposits made during demonetisation period in SBN for the failure of the appellant to produce sales register for sale of recharge coupons of Vodafone, etc. It was also held that the appellant was not authorised to accept SBN during the demonetisation period. In the circumstances, the AO treated these cash deposits made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by not admitting the additional evidence filed in the form of copies of paying slips, deposit slips by holding that the same were not produced before the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to admit the additional evidences. The reasons given by the CIT(A) for refusing to admit the additional evidence is that the assessee has failed to file the same before the AO. In my considered opinion the 3 ITA No. 756/Coch/2023 Sabu Joseph CIT(A) had failed to appreciate the fundamental principle that the question of filing additional evidence before the first appellate authority arises only because the appellant had failed to produce the same before the AO. Thus the reason given by the CIT(A) in refusing to admit the additional evidence is unreasonable, does not stand by the eyes of law. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is reversed and remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and decide the issues in appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2025. Sd/ Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 11th March, 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 "