Case Law Details
Mayandi Thevar Muniraj Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, considered an appeal arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. At the outset, the Tribunal addressed a delay of 311 days in filing the appeal. After examining the assessee’s condonation petition and supporting affidavit, the Tribunal concluded that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay and accordingly condoned it, admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The assessee was engaged in the business of trading in coconuts at Cumbum in Theni District. During the relevant previous year, cash deposits were made into the assessee’s Axis Bank account. While Form 26AS reflected cash deposits of Rs.14,84,800, the actual deposits amounted to Rs.18,08,700. The assessee had not filed the return of income within the prescribed period, believing in good faith that his income was below the taxable threshold. Subsequently, after reviewing his accounts, the assessee filed a return of income disclosing the cash deposits.
The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer sought an explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits amounting to Rs.18,08,700. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to substantiate the source of these deposits with supporting evidence. Consequently, the amount was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added to the total income. The Assessing Officer ultimately determined the assessee’s total income at Rs.20,34,730.
Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A), by order dated 11.02.2025, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish documentary evidence and had not satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) had passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and without granting an adequate and effective opportunity to substantiate the claim. It was submitted that the assessee, being a small trader engaged in the coconut business, possessed material capable of explaining the source of the deposits and sought one final opportunity to place the evidence on record. The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities, arguing that sufficient opportunities had already been granted.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the material on record, the Tribunal held that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be afforded one final opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. Since the dismissal by the CIT(A) was primarily due to the absence of supporting evidence and the matter involved verification of factual details, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was remanded with directions to decide the matter afresh on merits after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish all relevant documents and explanations, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the matter based on the material available on record. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 11.02.2025 for Assessment Years 2018-19.
2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 311 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.
We have carefully considered the contents of the condonation petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 311 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in coconuts at Cumbum, Theni District. During the relevant previous year, cash deposits were made into the assessee’s Axis Bank account. While Form 26AS reflected cash deposits of Rs.14,84,800/-, the assessee had actually deposited a sum of Rs.18,08,700/- in the bank account.
The assessee did not file the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 within the prescribed time, under the bona fide belief that his income was below the taxable limit. Subsequently, upon verification of his accounts, the assessee filed the return of income disclosing the cash deposits made in the bank account.
The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits amounting to Rs.18,08,700/-. Since, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to substantiate the source of such deposits with supporting evidence, the said amount was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income. Consequently, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.20,34,730/-.
4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 11.02.2025, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish documentary evidence in support of his contentions and failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposits.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without granting adequate and effective opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim. It was contended that the assessee is a small trader engaged in the coconut business and is in possession of material which can explain the source of the deposits. The learned AR therefore prayed that one final opportunity may be granted to the assessee.
6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted and that the order of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be upheld.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the orders of the authorities below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that one final opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to substantiate the source of the cash deposits and place all relevant materials before the appellate authority.
The record indicates that the appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) primarily for want of supporting evidence. Since the issue involves verification of factual details and supporting documents, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings and furnish all relevant documents and explanations in support of his case. Failure to do so may entitle the learned CIT(A) to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record.
8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 01st day of June, 2026, in Chennai.
Author Bio
