Case Law Details
Mohamedaseef Abdul Rahim Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai has remanded the case of Mohamedaseef Abdul Rahim back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reassessment. The dispute concerns an addition of ₹15.93 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The initial assessment was framed under Section 144 read with Section 147, and the CIT(A) upheld the addition due to a lack of supporting documentary evidence from the assessee. The assessee appealed, claiming he could substantiate the source of cash deposits if given another opportunity.
Despite the assessee’s failure to provide evidence during the first appeal, ITAT considered the principle of natural justice and granted a fresh opportunity for submission. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to present the necessary documents. The case will now be reconsidered by the CIT(A) with the required evidence.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned ADDL/JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bengaluru [CIT(A)] dated 19-07-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 18-12-2019. The registry has noted a delay of 2 days in the appeal, which stands condoned and we proceed with disposal of the appeal.
2. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.15.93 Lacs u/s.68 of the Act which represents cash deposits in bank accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same since the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of its claim. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate the source of cash deposits if afforded another opportunity. The same has been opposed by revenue.
3. Though the assessee has remained negligent in substantiating its case during first appeal, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before lower authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case forthwith.
4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 10th December, 2024.
Author Bio
