2022 (6) TMI 576 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal orders fresh review by Commissioner of Income Tax for cross-examination on cash deposits.

Shri N. Ramu Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-10 (5) CHENNAI

The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, setting aside the matter for fresh consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to provide an ... Unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A - Assessee deposited cash in the bank accounts - Denial of Natural justice - as argued AO did not allow the assessee for cross-verification related to the statements of the parties. HELD THAT:- CIT(A) took cognizance of the remand report without allowing the Assessee for cross-examining the four statement whose statement are contradictory with the Assessee's submission. Further, we accepted the additional evidence. Accordingly, the cash-flow statement should be verified by the Revenue authorities. Prima facie, it is accepted that, maintaining of cattle and generation of the milk and also selling the same for earning is primarily accepted. There is no question about the existence of the business. The only issue is the cash generation for depositing in the bank account. It is to be directed that the issue should be further re-examined by the learned CIT(A) taking cognizance of the documents filed by the Assessee and a reasonable opportunity be allowed for cross-examinations related to the four parties. Thus, we direct to set aside the matter before the learned CIT(A) de novo for further consideration of the issue. Furthermore, a reasonable opportunity should be given to the Assessee for his contention. Appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)2. Violation of the Principles of natural justice3. Addition of cash depositIssue 1: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was raised from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate, and the grounds of appeal included opposition to the order, alleging it to be contrary to law and facts.Issue 2: Violation of the Principles of natural justiceThe Assessee contended that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) violated the principles of natural justice as the statements obtained from customers were not provided to the Assessee for cross-examination. The Assessee argued that reliance on these statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination was erroneous and illegal, rendering the entire order a nullity in the eyes of the law.Issue 3: Addition of cash depositThe Assessee had deposited a significant amount of cash in the bank accounts, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee explained the source of the cash deposits as income from a milk business, but the Assessing Officer added the amount back to the total income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the Assessee to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.The Tribunal considered additional evidence submitted by the Assessee, including a cash-flow summary, to support the explanation of cash deposits. The Departmental Representative highlighted contradictions in statements from customers who purchased milk from the Assessee, casting doubt on the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the issue, emphasizing the need for cross-examination and further consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the matter for a fresh consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the opportunity for cross-examination and clarification on the source of the cash deposits.