MANOHAR,PUDUCHERRY V. ITO, WARD-3, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 564/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Manohar against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the discovery of these deposits. Despite multiple notices under sections 142(1) and 148, the assessee did not comply or provide a return, leading to a best judgment assessment under section 144. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the assessee's failure to respond to notices and provide evidence of the alleged fraudulent accounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781058 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Vijayakumar v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURUPRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी रȉेश नंदन सहाय, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.564/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manohar, No. 2, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Ganapathichettikulam, Puducherry – 605 014. [PAN:AWMPM5480E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3, Puducherry. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT for Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer, on noticing cash deposit in the society bank belonging to the assessee, reopened Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.564/Chny/25 2 the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and in response, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer issued 3 notices under section 142(1) of the Act and 4 notices show-causing the assessee why the cash deposit be added to the total income of the assessee, which is evident from para 2 to 9 of the assessment order, which clearly shows that there was no compliance by the assessee in response to the notices issued under section 142(1), 148 of the Act and show-cause notice during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we note that the Assessing Officer completed the best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act vide order dated 29.03.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. We find the ld. CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee, which is evident from para 4 of the impugned order. According to the ld. CIT(A), there was no response nor compliance in respect of the notices issued by the first appellate authority and accordingly, confirmed the order of the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.564/Chny/25 3 Assessing Officer in the absence of satisfactory explanation as required under the law. 4. Before us, the ld. AR Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate refers to the statement of facts and submits that the assessment order is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of IT Act. He submits that the assessee has not deposited any cash in the bank account mentioned in the assessment order, all the bank accounts mentioned in the assessment order were fraudulent bank accounts opened by somebody and the assessee do not have any connection with the bank account and a police complaint lodged by the assessee to that effect. The ld. AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vijayakumar v. ITO vide order dated 04.06.2025 in ITA Nos. 662, 663 & 664/Chny/2025 for AYs 2017-18, 2017-18 & 2018-19, and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing and allow the grounds of appeal. 5. The ld. DR Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and argued that no lenient view be taken in the case of the assessee. He refers to the assessment order as well as ld. CIT(A) and submits that both the authorities below have given ample opportunities Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.564/Chny/25 4 to the assessee seeking explanation in respect of the cash deposits as found by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s account, but, however, no response from the assessee neither to the notice under section 148 of the Act nor to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act and show-cause notices. He argued vehemently the fact and circumstances in the case of Shri Vijayakumar v. ITO (supra) are different and cannot be applicable in the present case. 6. Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, we find that as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, many opportunities were given by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), but, however, no compliance bring on record the actual facts before the authorities below. Further we note that no evidence was brought on record showing the proof of any police case or investigation pending in the case of the assessee before us enabling the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we find force in the argument of the ld. DR that the findings rendered by the ITAT, Chennai Benches in the case of Shri Vijayakumar is not applicable. Therefore, having nothing on record, the submissions of the ld. AR in remanding the matter to the file of the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.564/Chny/25 5 Assessing Officer is not acceptable and thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 22nd October, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 22.10.2025 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. Printed from counselvise.com "