AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Shri Princy Kumar Singhal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that addition of Rs.13,20,000/- u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority without considering submissions of the assessee confirmed the addition. He submitted that the assessee has good case on merits. If an opportunity is provided, the assessee would be able to show that no addition is warranted.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in a summary manner. Though the CIT(A) has discussed the facts of the case, the adjudication is primarily based on general observations and presumptions without dealing with the evidences furnished by the assessee. It is further observed that the addition has been sustained on an estimated basis by applying a percentage to the cash deposits in the Bank during demonetization period. In my considered view, the impugned order is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate appeal afresh by passing a speaking order, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.