SHILPA TEKKAYIL,KOZHIKODE V. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOZHIKODE

ITA 1162/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shilpa Tekkayil, an individual running a business under the name M/s. Thejas Metals, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 8,90,772 as unexplained money during the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kozhikode, due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) upheld this addition without a detailed examination of the facts and grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapse by the CIT(A) and remanded the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23416 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 1162/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shilpa Tekkayil .......... Appellant Sreelakshmi, Kalathil, Thodi Mankavu Kozhikode 673007 [PAN: EZAPS9550N] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(4), Kozhikode Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 21.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Thejas Metals. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 22.01.2018 declaring income of Rs. 9,03,470/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), 2 ITA No. 1162/Coch/2024 Shilpa Tekkayil Kozhikode (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 27.11.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 17,94,242/- after making addition of Rs. 8,90,772/- being cash deposits made during demonetisation period treating as unexplained money of the assessee for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposits. It is submitted that out of Rs. 11,00,000/- deposited during demonetisation period a sum of Rs. 2,09,228/- was out of the cash balance available on 08.09.2016. On the balance amount of Rs. 8,90,772/- addition was made treating as unexplained money. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. At the outset I find that there is a delay of 164 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellate order was served through email of the Authorised Representative. Due to technical issues the Authorised Representative could not access the messages in the email. Therefore, the delay is not wilful or deliberate. Therefore it is 3 ITA No. 1162/Coch/2024 Shilpa Tekkayil prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The issue in the present appeal is whether the AO was justified in making addition on Rs. 8,90,772/- as unexplained money of the assessee. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) merely confirmed the action of the AO without referring to the statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed before him. This order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary to the well settled position of law. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4 ITA No. 1162/Coch/2024 Shilpa Tekkayil 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st February, 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 "