ANCHALAN MPHAMMED NAJEEB,MALAPPURAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TIRUR, TIRUR

ITA 491/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anchalan Mohammed Najeeb, an individual engaged in the wholesale and commission agency of vegetables, who appealed against the order of the NFAC confirming the AO's assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO had made significant additions to the appellant's declared income, categorizing substantial amounts as unexplained income and business income. The appellant contested that the AO incorrectly treated all bank deposits as business income without considering the income declared from the commission agency. The ITAT found that the NFAC had not adequately addressed these concerns and thus remanded the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717286 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAKUNTH SELVARAJ
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 491/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anchalan Mohammed Najeeb, .......... Appellant Prop. Mubarak Agencies, Palakkal Post, Velimukku South, Malappuram. [PAN: BBYPM 2420 G] vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Tirur Appellant by: Shakunth Selvaraj, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, SR-DR Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 08.05.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual, engaged in the business of wholesale dealer and commission agent of vegetables. The return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 31/03/2018 declaring income of Rs. 3,29,700/-. Against the said Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 491/Coch/2025 Anchalan Mohammed Najeeb return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward- 3, Tirur ((for short, 'AO') passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') vide order 29/11/2019 at a total income of Rs. 48,27,468/-. While doing sothe AO made addition of Rs.24,90,294/- on account of ‘income from business’ and Rs.20,07,471/- being cash deposits made in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO without passing speaking order. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passes by NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of dealing in vegetables as well as acting as commission agent. Sale proceeds in respect of commission agency were also deposited in the bank account, therefore, the AO ought not have treated the entire cash deposits in the bank account as sale proceeds of the appellant since the appellant already offered income from commission agency. It is further submitted that the AO ought not have computed estimation of profit at 8% of the gross receipts as it is excessive and unreasonable. In any event, it is submitted that the income offered by the appellant under the head ‘business’ ought to have been reduced. As regards to the cash deposits, he submits that the cash Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 491/Coch/2025 Anchalan Mohammed Najeeb deposits in the SBNs were out of sale proceeds of the appellant which are accepted by the department. Therefore, no addition is called for. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR submits that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is a reasoned one, requires no interference by this Tribunal. 7. I have carefully perused the order passed by the learned CIT(A).The NFAC without meeting the grounds of appeal raised before the appellant, simply confirmed the addition without passing a reasoned and speaking order and addressing the submissions made before the NFAC. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion, the matter requires remand to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being hearing to the appellant. I make it clear all the contentions raised before this Tribunal are kept open. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 13th August, 2025 vr/- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 491/Coch/2025 Anchalan Mohammed Najeeb Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "