ADITYA VIKRAM PODDER SWETHA PODDAR,TAMIL NADU V. ITO WARD 3(1), TAMIL NADU

ITA 2724/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Aditya Vikram Podder against the order of the CIT(A), Chandigarh, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs to the appellant's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to unexplained cash deposits in specified bank notes during the demonetization period. The appellant had claimed that these deposits were from an opening cash balance of Rs. 9,80,993, but this explanation was rejected by the NFAC for lack of evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately allowed the appellant to explain the source of these deposits and thus remanded the case for a de novo hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827422 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT RAI; VIRTUALLLY
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2724/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Aditya Vikram Podder Swetha Poddar, No.37, VVC Layout MTP Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 002. [PAN: AAQPA5491H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Coimbatore. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr.Amit Rai, CA(Virtuallly) Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Addl/JCIT (herein after called CIT(A)’ in short], Chandigarh, dated 24.09.2025 for AY- 2017-18. 2.0 Briefly the facts of the case are, the appellant an individual. The return of income for the Assessment Year-2017-18 was filed by the appellant disclosing the income of Rs.3,40,210/. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 14.11.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) at a total income of Rs.14,40,210/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposits in specified bank notes in the bank Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2724/Chny/202 Page - 2 - of 3 account during the demonetization period of Rs.11 lakhs for alleged failure of the appellant to explain the source of the said deposits. 3.0 Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 4.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on records. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.11 lakhs made by the AO on account of cash deposits in specified bank notes during the demonetization period. On mere perusal of para 6 of the impugned order, it would be clear that the NFAC rejected the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of opening cash balance of Rs.9,80,993/- by holding that the appellant has failed to show the availability of cash balance by adducing necessary evidence. The NFAC also made certain unwarranted bald observations. The CIT(A) had not given sufficient and reasonable opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposits. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2724/Chny/202 Page - 3 - of 3 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 5th , January-2026 at Chennai. Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) Judicial Member Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) Accountant Member Chennai, Dated: 5th , January-2026. KB/- Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. DR 5. GF Printed from counselvise.com "