Case Law Details
Shri Palanisamy Chinnasamy Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
In this case, The assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 144(1)(b) of the Act by making addition of ₹.5,34,000/- under section 69A of the Act on the ground that the money received from the customers on various dates in old notes cannot be accepted a genuine as the assessee was not supposed to receive currency as per the norms. The contention of the assessee is that he has received and remitted the demonetized currency within the time stipulated by the Act No. 2 of 2017 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has been doing furniture business which does not fall under the exemption category as given by the board such as petrol pump, hospital, medical shop, Airtel recharge, etc.
In this case, admittedly, the assessee has neither filed regular return of income under section 139 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18 nor furnished complete details in response to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, there was no response to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) also or furnished any explanation/reply and thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee shall furnish complete details before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall, after verification of details as may be filed by the assessee, decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 17.11.2021 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
