DEEPAK RAMCHAND RAHEJA,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

MA 99/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Deepak Ramchand Raheja, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 99/Chny/2024) to modify the Tribunal's earlier order concerning an addition of unexplained cash deposits for the assessment year 2017-18. Initially, the Tribunal had sustained an addition of \\u20b911,50,000 as unexplained cash deposit. However, upon review, it was found that the Tribunal had not considered certain allowances made by the Assessing Officer for probable cash on hand and withdrawals, leading to a clerical error in the recorded addition. The Tribunal acknowledged this mistake and corrected the sustained addition to \\u20b99,95,000.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107437 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: KARUNAKARAN

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member M.A. No. 99/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/2024] िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Ramchand Raheja, A-11, Garden City Apartments, 318, Valluvarkottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAEPR5387D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Karunakaran, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: By way of Miscellaneous Application, the assessee intends to modify the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2024 passed in ITA No. 1787/Chny/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The ld. AR Shri Karunakaran, Advocate submits that the Tribunal has sustained the addition of ₹.11,50,000/- as unexplained cash deposit made by the assessee while accepting the submissions of the M.A. No.99/Chny/24 2 petitioner that the actual cash deposited in the bank was only ₹.16,50,000/- and not ₹.21,00,000/- as adopted by the Assessing Officer. By giving a detailed explanation in table format in the application, the ld. AR further submits that while making addition of ₹.14,45,000/-, the Assessing Officer allowed ₹.5,00,000/- as probable cash on hand and also allowed further sum of ₹.1,55,000/- as available out of withdrawals from the bank for making the deposit. While passing the appeal order, the Tribunal has not considered the amount of ₹.1,55,000/- allowed by the Assessing Officer and sustained the addition to an extent of ₹.11,50,000/-, which is a mistake apparent on record and prayed for suitable modification of the order. 3. On perusal of the impugned order dated 23.10.2024, we note that this Tribunal, at para 7 of the impugned order, by referring page 2 of the assessment order, considered the cash deposit at ₹.16,50,000/-, but, not ₹.21,00,000/-. As per page 2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer accepted cash withdrawals of ₹.1,55,000/- and thereby, the addition challenged before the Tribunal is only ₹.14,95,000/- and not ₹.16,50,000/-. Since, the Assessing Officer has given cash benefit of ₹.5.00 lakhs on account of earlier cash balance and taking to the same, the challenge regarding the addition before the M.A. No.99/Chny/24 3 Tribunal is only ₹.9,95,000/- [₹.14,95,000 – ₹.5,00,000]. Thus, we find there is a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Tribunal that the addition actually sustained is ₹.9,95,000/-, as the assessee actually challenged the addition before the Tribunal is ₹.9,95,000/- only. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2024 is modified to the extent stated above. 4. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 12th March, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 12.03.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "