SUBAIRA PARVIN SEENI IBRAHIM,RAMNAD V. ACIT, INTNL. TAXN. CIRCLE, MADURAI

ITA 168/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Subairaparvin Seeni Ibrahim, a Non-Resident Indian, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, which confirmed the addition of Rs.31,00,000 to her income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the AO following scrutiny of her income tax return, which revealed a significant deposit in her bank account during the demonetization period. The AO transferred the case to the DCIT (International Taxation) after determining that the assessee was not residing in India. The DCIT issued notices and completed the assessment hastily, within 15 days, without providing adequate time for the assessee to respond. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to submit necessary documents and explanations, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case back to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 106960 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BABITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND BABUNATH
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद\f क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.168/Chny/2023 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Subairaparvin Seeni Ibrahim, 8/168, Palankottai Street, Devipattinam, Ramanad-623 514. v. The ACIT, Taxation Circle, Madurai. [PAN: HGRPS 1751 Q] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Anand Babunath, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Babitha, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 10.10.2024 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, (hereinafter in short \"the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai, dated 14.12.2022 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2017-18. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.31,00,000/-. ITA No.168/Chny/2023 (AY 2017-18) Smt. Subairaparvin Seeni Ibrahim :: 2 :: 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a Non- Resident Indian residing outside India and had filed her return of income (RoI) for AY 2017-18 on 03.01.2018 to the tune of Rs.2,61,000/-. Even though the AO, issued notice u/s.143(2) on 22.09.2018 finding that the assessee was not residing in India, transferred the case to the office of the DCIT (International Taxation) on 18.09.2019 and the AO issued notices to the assessee regarding cash deposits of Rs.31 lakhs on 25.11.2019 by issuing notice u/s.142(1); and even though, assessee submitted reply with details of the nature and source of the deposits made by her father in her account, the AO asked for certain documents which assessee was unable to produce before the assessment was framed on 11.12.2019 and instead was able to produce the same after 11.12.2019. According to the Ld.AR, it can be seen that the jurisdictional AO [the DCIT (International Taxation)] had issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on 25.11.2019 and framed the assessment on 11.12.2019 i.e. within a span of 15 days which was hastily done without giving adequate time to the assessee for producing the relevant evidences before the AO. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), he prayed that assessee may be granted one more opportunity before the AO. ITA No.168/Chny/2023 (AY 2017-18) Smt. Subairaparvin Seeni Ibrahim :: 3 :: 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is an NRI and had filed her RoI for AY 2017-18 on 03.01.2018 returning an income of Rs.2,61,000/-. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO noted that there was a deposit of Rs.31 lakhs during demonetization period in assessee’s bank account, hence he issued notice to the assessee on 22.09.2018, meanwhile, the AO found out that the assessee was not residing in India and an NRI, hence, he transferred the case to the DCIT (International Taxation) on 18.09.2019. Then the AO [the DCIT (International Taxation)] issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on 25.11.2019 and thereafter, framed the assessment order on 11.12.2019 making an addition of Rs.31 lakhs (i.e. within a span of 15 days). The main grievance of the assessee is that no proper opportunity was given to the assessee to submit its explanation/documents regarding the nature and source of the deposits made by her father in her account. Since, the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co., (supra), we set aside the impugned ITA No.168/Chny/2023 (AY 2017-18) Smt. Subairaparvin Seeni Ibrahim :: 4 :: order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The Ld.AR undertakes to file written submissions/relevant documents before the AO on the issue of deposit of Rs.31 lakhs during demonetization. The AO to frame assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 06th day of December, 2024, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद\f/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\u0006य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\tई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 06th December, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "