BALAKRISHNAN RAMANATHAN,GOBICHETTIPALAYAM V. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

ITA 2279/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Balakrishnan Ramanathan, the appellant, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the case due to cash deposits in the appellant's savings bank accounts, which were linked to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) account involved in textile and petrol bunk businesses. The appellant claimed these transactions were accounted for in the HUF's books, but the ITO rejected this and estimated the income based on the cash deposits. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision due to insufficient evidence. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472387 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWIN D. GOWDA LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ LD
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” \rा यपीठ चे\u0012ई म\u0015। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI मा ननीय \u0018ी एबी टी. वक\u001c, \rा ियक सद\u001f एवं मा ननीय \u0018ी मनोज क ुमा र अ$वा ल ,लेखा सद\u001f क े सम&। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं ./ ITA No.2279/Chny/2024 (िनधा 'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Balakrishnan Ramanathan 17, Canal Street, Gobichettipalayam-638 452. बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Erode. \u0002थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AEGPR-4674-H (अपीलाथ\u001c/Appellant) : (\u001f थ\u001c / Respondent) अपीलाथ\u001cकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.AR \u001f थ\u001cकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Ashwin D.Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of the order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 25-06-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 10- 10-2019. The registry has noted delay of 5 days in the appeal which stands condoned. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee did not file its return of income. Since the assessee deposited 2 cash in savings bank account, the case was reopened wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the same. The assessee admitted salary income of Rs.1.20 Lacs. The assessee stated that the cash deposits in ICICI Bank Account and other Savings Bank Account relates to HUF Account who was doing textile business and petrol bunk business in the name of B. Ramanathan (HUF). The transactions in the bank accounts were stated to be accounted for in the hands of HUF. The assessee also stated that the bank mentioned PAN of individual assessee instead of PAN of HUF. Since the requisite details were not forthcoming form the assessee, Ld. AO rejected the same and estimated income of 8% against total cash deposits and framed the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for want of sufficient documentary evidences from the assessee, in that regard. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR placed on record a paper-book which contains return of income and computation of income of HUF for this year. The financial statements as well as tax audit report of HUF has also been placed on record along-with summary of closing bank balances. The Ld. AR also stated that similar addition was made by Ld. AO in the hands of the individual-assessee for AY 2017-18 which was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18-12-2024 by accepting the similar explanation of the assessee. We are of the view that all these documents would be vital to strengthen the claim of the assessee. Apparently, the impugned bank transactions have been accounted for in the books of HUF. Therefore, we restore the assessment back to the file of Ld. AO for limited purpose of verification of the said fact. If the said bank account has already been accounted for by HUF, no separate addition would be made in the hands 3 of the assessee. We order so. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) \rा ियक सद\u001f /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद\u001f / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-02-2025 DS आदेश की Fितिलिप अ$ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001c/Appellant 2. \u001f थ\u001c/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT Coimbatore/Madurai/Chennai. 4. िवभागीय\u001fितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF "