THORACHIIL VARKEY SABU, ,ERNAKULAM V. ITO, NON CORP. WARD-1(4), ERNAKULAM

ITA 935/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Thorachiyil Varkey Sabu, an individual running a proprietary concern dealing in wholesale of tamarind and provisions, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had assessed Sabu's income significantly higher than declared, attributing unexplained cash deposits in his bank account as unexplained money. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision, leading Sabu to appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the grounds of appeal or the evidence provided, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474696 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH KUMAR VARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 22

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 935/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thorachiyil Varkey Sabu .......... Appellant Thoraciyil, Mulanthuruthy, Ernakulam 682314 [PAN: DBGPS5503E] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Appellant by: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.03.2025 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 11.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual running a proprietary concern dealing in wholesale of tamarind, provisions. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 05.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,26,790/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward, Ernakulam (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA No. 935/Coch/2024 Thorachiyil Varkey Sabu 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 42,28,790/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 38,02,000/- treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the appellant made a total cash deposit of Rs. 1,12,83,296/- out of which an amount of Rs. 19,97,500/- was treated as unexplained, as the amount was deposited in a joint account in which he was a joint account holder. The AO also treated the deposits aggregating to Rs. 38,02,000/- received from three parties as unexplained in the absence of proof to substantiate the same. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for failure of the assessee to substantive the deposits. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the out I find that there is delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred as the appellant had not received the order passed by the CIT(A) on email. However, the order of the CIT(A) was physically served on the appellant on 28.08.2024 and the appeal was filed immediately. Therefore, the delay is not wilful or deliberate. It is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. 6. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable 3 ITA No. 935/Coch/2024 Thorachiyil Varkey Sabu cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 38,02,000/- being the cash deposit made in bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. In the grounds of appeal, filed before the CIT(A) the appellant had raised ground of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 explaining the source as well as the evidence. The CIT(A) without adverting to the grounds of appeal and discussing the evidence mentioned in the grounds of appeal merely dismissed the appeal. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal in accordance with law decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 27th March, 2025 n.p. 4 ITA No. 935/Coch/2024 Thorachiyil Varkey Sabu Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "