LEO BHAGINATH,MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE V. ITO,WARD-1(2), KOZHIKODE

ITA 626/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Leo Bhagianath, an advocate, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which partly allowed his appeal for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Initially, the Income Tax Officer assessed his income significantly higher than declared, attributing unexplained money to his account. The CIT(A) later recognized part of this as professional receipts but still considered a substantial amount as unexplained. Bhagianath's appeal to the Tribunal included additional evidences crucial for adjudication, which were admitted, leading to the remittance of the case back to the AO for reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783970 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND KUMAR; V. K
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 626/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Bhagianath .......... Appellant 34/290, Malaparamba, Kozhikode 673009 [PAN: ADTPL7403Q] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Anand Kumar, V.K, 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 09.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income as an Advocate. The return of income for AY 2017- 18 was filed on 21.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 5,50,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 04.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 42,72,800/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the credits in the bank Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 626/Coch/2025 Leo Bhagianath account of Rs. 36,04,500/- as unexplained money of the appellant. He also brought to tax the interest on bank deposit of Rs. 1,18,300/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by holding that out of the total cash credits in the bank account of Rs. 50,04,500/- an amount of Rs. 24,39,000/- was declared as professional receipts on which income was offered to tax at 50% of the amount under the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A), held that only the balance amount of Rs. 25,65,500/- should be brought to tax as unexplained money of the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The appellant had filed an application seeking admission of additional evidences by stating that these additional evidences could not be produced before the learned lower authorities as the appellant was diagnosed with prostate cancer. It is further submitted that the additional evidences sought to be filed are crucial for adjudication of issues in the appeal. Thus, it is submitted that the additional evidences may be admitted. It is further submitted that the balance of credit does not represent the income as these credits were received on behalf of the clients and no services are rendered by the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 626/Coch/2025 Leo Bhagianath 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR had no serious objection for admission the additional evidences. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to admit the additional evidences as it goes to the very root of the matter and I am satisfied with the reasons given for non production of the evidences before the learned lower authorities. Accordingly, I admit the additional evidences and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment based on the additional evidences produced after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing the appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 10th November, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "