ITAT orders for Re- adjudication due to Non-Consideration of Demonetization-Period Evidence [Read Order]

The bench noted that these details supported the assessee's argument linking cash deposits during the demonetization period to organized business activities
ITAT - Demonetization - Non-Consideration of Demonetization - taxscan

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered the Income Tax matter re-adjudication due to non-consideration of demonetization period evidence.

In this case, the assessee appealed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2019–20.

The issue involved in the case is the non-consideration of written submissions and supporting details filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ).

The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us

The counsel for the assessee brought attention to the ex parte order dated 26-06- 2024 passed by the first appellate authority, alleging that it was issued without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee. The counsel highlighted an electronic acknowledgment (No. dated 21 March 2024) evidencing the submission of details during the appellate proceedings, which the CIT(A) claimed were not provided.

The bench noted that these details supported the assessee’s argument linking cash deposits during the demonetization period to organized business activities. The assessee requested the matter be remanded to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The department’s counsel defended the lower authorities’ order.

The bench noted the assessee made the reply to the CIT( A ) in the electronic format.

The bench set aside the order of the  First Appellate Authority and directed a fresh adjudication after considering the details submitted by the assessee. The bench directed that a speaking order must be passed, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to be heard. The bench held that the assessee must comply with all notices, failing which adverse action may be taken.

The assessee was represented by Adv. G. Akash and the revenue by Mr. Chinthapalli Meher Chand.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader