KETTIMUTHUGOUNDER,ERODE V. ITO, WARD 2(1). CHENNAI, ERODE

ITA 2149/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Kettimuthugounder against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the Assessing Officer's decision treating a cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- as unexplained for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee contested the existence of such a deposit in his bank account during the relevant financial year. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the bank statement provided by the assessee, decided to set aside the previous order and directed the AO to verify the details of the alleged deposit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783979 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRYATI SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.SRIDHAR ERODE
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,‘ए’ Ûयायपीठ,चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी मनु क ुमार ͬगǐर,ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी जगदȣश, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2149/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Kettimuthugounder, Kulla Goundanvalasu, Avalpoondurai Post, Erode – 638 115. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode PAN: BRTPK 6998Q (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ‘the CIT(A), NFAC / Delhi dated 23.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2012-13. 2. The short grievance of the assessee is that whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee whereby he Printed from counselvise.com - 2 - ITA. No:2149/Chny/2025 upheld the order of the AO treating the cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- as unexplained? 3. The AO in para 1 of its order noted as under: 1. From the information available on record, it was seen that the assessee, during the Financial Year 2011-12, relevant to the Assessment year 2012- 13 had made cash deposits of Rs.60,25,000/- (In aggregate on various dates) into his Savings Bank account with M/s. EDCC Bank.” 4. At, the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed statement of the Account of the assessee for period 23.04.2011 to 26.03.2012, lying with EDCC Bank [A/c. No.10825010002125]. The ld. counsel pleaded that there is no such purported cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- in the EDCC Bank account for FY 2011-12. 5. Per contra, the ld.DR vehemently relied upon the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A). However, she pleaded that the aforesaid cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- in the EDCC Bank account for FY 2011-12 may be verified by the AO from the statement of the Account of the assessee for period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record and statement of the Account of the assessee for period 23.04.2011 to 26.03.2012. We find strength in the argument of the assessee therefore we set aside the impugned order and restored back to the file of the AO only for the verification of the purported cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- in the EDCC Bank account of the assessee for FY 2011-12. From the assessment order, we find that reason for opening the assessment was based upon the para 1 of the assessment order as recorded by the AO. Needless to say, AO will Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - ITA. No:2149/Chny/2025 provide proper opportunity to the assessee while doing verification. The assessee is also directed to co-operate the AO during verification. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms above. Order pronounced in open Court on the 10th day of November 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated: 10th November, 2025. RSR, Sr.PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "