CHANDANATH IRSHAD,THRISSUR V. ITO, WARD-1& TPS, GURUVAYOOR

ITA 631/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chandanth Irshad, the proprietor of Irshad Agencies, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 9,15,532 to his income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The addition was based on unaccounted cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,43,41,285 in the appellant's bank account, which were treated as business turnover and taxed at an estimated profit rate of 8%. The appellant contended that the estimation was arbitrary and excessive, especially since his books were audited. However, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected his arguments due to non-compliance with procedural notices and lack of supporting evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783977 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NARAYANAN P. POTTY
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 631/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Chandanth Irshad .......... Appellant Irshad Agencies, Chandanth, Andathode Thrissur 679564 [PAN: AEFPI2931B] vs. ITO, Ward -1 & TPS, Guruvayoor .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 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 11.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and proprietor of the firm Irshal Agencies carrying on the business of trading in cattle feed. No regular return of income for AY 2015- 16 was filed by the appellant. Subsequently, the AO, based on the information available in the AIMS module of ITBA that the appellant had deposited cash in SB account aggregating to Rs. 1,43,41,285/-, formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 631/Coch/2025 Chandanth Irshad tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 31.03.2021. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed the return of income on 09.08.2021 declaring income of Rs. 2,34,600/-. The appellant had not furnished the information sought by the assessing authority in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO treated the entire cash deposits as business turnover of the appellant and estimated the income at 8%. Accordingly, he made addition of Rs. 9,15,532/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the AO ought not have estimated the income of the appellant in view of the fact that the books of account were audited. Further, it is submitted that estimation of profit at 8% is arbitrary and excessive. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that the assessee had failed to comply with the notice issued by the AO u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Even before the CIT(A) no information was filed by the appellant in support of the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 631/Coch/2025 Chandanth Irshad 7. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the estimation of income at 8% treating the cash deposits as business turnover of the appellant. On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the appellant had failed to comply with the notice issued by the assessing authority calling for information u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The appellant took the plea that the books of accounts are audited and, therefore, estimation of profit is unwarranted. Even before the CIT(A), no pleadings were made as to how he was prevented from filing the information sought for by the assessing authority. Similarly, even before this Tribunal no submissions were made as to the reasons for noncompliance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned lower authorities. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 10th November, 2025 n.p. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 631/Coch/2025 Chandanth Irshad 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 "