ARIYANGOUNDAMPATTI VARUTHARAJAN, NAMAKKAL TAMILNADU V. ITO,SALEMROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL TAMILNADU

ITA 244/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Ariyagoundampatti Varutharajan Ganesan against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs to his income for the assessment year 2011-12. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Namakkal, following the discovery of a Rs. 38 lakhs cash deposit in the assessee's bank account. The assessee provided various explanations for the source of the deposit, including proceeds from a property partition, sale of plots, loans, and agricultural income, totaling Rs. 55,43,330. However, he failed to substantiate these claims with evidence, leading to the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained income. The Tribunal also addressed and dismissed the assessee's challenges regarding the procedural validity of the notice and approval under sections 148 and 151 of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127432 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘ए’/ SMC यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ /SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ी महावीर संह, उपा य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT आयकरअपीलसं./I. T. A. No. 2 4 4/ Chn y/ 2 0 2 3 ( नधा रणवष / As s e s s m en t Ye a r : 20 11 - 1 2) Mr. Ariyagoundampatti Varutharajan Ganesan, Sami Kadu Ariyakulandai Thottam Ariyagoundampatti Rasipuram Namakkal-638 037. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Namakkal. P AN: A BA PG 9 9 9 5 P (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. S.Chandrasekaran, JCIT स ु नवाईक तार ख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 16.03.2023 घोषणाक तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 30.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 / 1049750155(1) dated 14.02.2023. The assessment was completed by the ITO., Ward-3, Namakkal for the relevant assessment year 2011-12 u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order dated 30.12.2019. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to order of the CIT(A) confirming action of the 2 ITA No. 244/Chny/2023 Assessing Officer in making addition of cash deposit of Rs.25 lakhs by the Assessing Officer. 3. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts & circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.38 lakhs in his savings bank account No.16508 maintained with Canara Bank. The assessee tried to explain sources and he filed following explanation:- The Assessing Officer accepted explanation to the extent of Rs.13 lakhs and balance of Rs.25 lakhs was added to the returned income of the assessee treating the same as unexplained. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 3 ITA No. 244/Chny/2023 4. The assessee before the CIT(A) also tried to explain deposits by following sources:- SI. No. Particulars Amount Rs 1. Amount received from Partition (Partition Deed) Karur Vysya Bank, year 1998 17,50,000 2. Sale of Plot, Sale of Factory in year 2005 4,98,000 3 Jewel Loan from UCO Bank 4,06,000 4 Jewel Loan from Pallavan Grama Bank 8,39,000 5 Agriculture Loan- Canara Bank 2,50,000 6 Housing Lona – Canara Bank 10,00,000 7 Amount from Karpatha Agro Food by cheque 8,00,000 Total 55,43,330 The assessee, before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A), has not substantiated his claim by any evidence in regard to above sources, but merely bald statement was made explaining sources. The assessee has neither given dates for receipt of these amounts nor any evidence in support of the same. In the absence of the same, both the authorities below i.e., Assessing Officer and CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs.25 lakhs. 5. I noted that even now before me, on specific query, the learned counsel for the assessee could not file any details or 4 ITA No. 244/Chny/2023 any evidence in regard to above sources explained. He simply made bald statements and requested that matter can be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that unless or until, the assessee files some evidence to explain the cash deposits on the above source, without that it will be futile exercise to send back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. In term of the above, I have no hesitation to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. The second issue raised by the assessee is as regards to validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and also approval obtained u/s. 151 of the Act. 7. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee could not make any submission on the above legal grounds and also could not substantiate by filing any evidence that how notice issued u/s.148 or approval obtained u/s.151 is not as per law or vitiated. In absence of any arguments, I have no hesitation in rejecting grounds of appeal raised by the 5 ITA No. 244/Chny/2023 assessee. Hence, this ground of the assessee is also dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 th March, 2023 Sd/- (महावीर संह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा य / Vice-President चे$नई/Chennai, %दनांक/Dated 30.03.2023 DS आदेश क त)ल*प अ+े*षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु ,त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ु ,त/CIT 5. *वभागीय त न0ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.