Non-Speaking Order by CIT(A) on Alleged Suppression of Receipts Remanded for Fresh Adjudication: ITAT [Read Order]

In this case, the appellant, Chanki Ramwani, a transporter by profession, had filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring an income of ₹8,68,430. The case was selected for scrutiny, and during assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed a discrepancy between receipts shown in the books and those reflected in Form 26AS.

The AO concluded that the assessee had suppressed receipts of ₹16,28,939 and, by order dated 22.10.2018 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added the amount to the income. CIT(A), Thiruvananthapuram, upheld the addition of ₹16,28,939 while dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here

The Appellant, represented by Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, argued that the appellate authority had erred in confirming the addition without considering the reconciliation statement of turnover and TDS credits uploaded on 25.05.2024. It was contended that the appellate order was non-speaking and failed to address the written submissions, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The appellant further submitted that the difference in receipts arose due to mismatches in Form 26AS, which was later updated, and the books of account were duly maintained in compliance with Section 44AA.

It was contended via Form No. 35 that no physical copy of the order was ever served, despite opting out of email communications, and knowledge of the order came only upon checking the income tax portal.

The Revenue, represented by Anubhaa Tah Goel,opposed the plea for condonation of delay, submitting that the delay was inordinate and unjustified. It was further contended via Form 26AS that discrepancies were not a valid explanation.

The Bench comprising of Judicial Member, Ravish Sood condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that since the assessee was not served with a hard copy of the CIT(A)’s order, the limitation period was to be reckoned from the date the assessee actually became aware of the order in December 2024.

The Tribunal observed that the appeal had been filed within 60 days from that date and was therefore within time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in upholding the addition without examining the reconciliation chart and supporting documents submitted by the assessee. Since the order was non-speaking and passed without proper consideration of the evidence, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation - Click Here

The Tribunal clarified that the assessee would have liberty to substantiate his claim with additional documents in the course of set-aside proceedings.

The assessee had filed an affidavit dated 13.01.2025 regarding non-receipt of the CIT(A)’s order and also submitted admit a reconciliation chart of turnover and TDS credits. However, the Tribunal declined to admit these as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, but allowed the assessee to produce them before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A during remand proceedings.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Additionally, directions were provided to CIT(A) for the re-examine of the matter afresh with grant of an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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