MATHIYAZHAGAN VINOTH KUMAR,CUDDALORE V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1670/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mathiyazhagan Vinoth Kumar, the appellant, who contested the assessment orders for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 issued by the ACIT Central Circle - 1(1), Chennai. The primary contention was regarding the jurisdiction and the validity of the assessment orders passed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search operation. The appellant argued that there were no incriminating materials found during the search to justify the additions made to his income. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the proceedings under section 153A were correctly initiated and the additions were justified based on the unexplained cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781131 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS; C.I.T
• Assessee Lawyers: P.M. KATHIR
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 44AD

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘बी’ \u000eयायपीठ, चे\u000eनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0015ी जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े, उपा\u001aय\u001b एवं \u0015ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद%य क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1669 & 1670/Chny/2025 'नधा\u0018रण वष\u0018 / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Mathiyazhagan Vinoth Kumar, 12B, Mettu Street, Tirupadiripuliyur S.O, Tirupadiripuliyur, Cuddalore – 607 001. Tamil Nadu. vs. ACIT Central Circle – 1(1), Chennai. [PAN: CVZPK-2469-K] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate *+यथ) क, ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई क, तार ख/Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा क, तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : Both the appeals in ITA no 1669/Chny/2025 and 1670/Chny/2025 filed by the assessee are directed against common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai, [herein after “ld.CIT(A)] dated 22.04.2025 for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Through the Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. Nos:1669 & 1670/Chny/2025 aforesaid appeals, the assessee has challenged the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. Since facts of the cases and the grounds taken up in the appeals are similar except variation in the amount, these appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience 3. First, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No. 1669/Chny/2025 relevant to the assessment year 2020-21 for adjudication. 4. The assessee objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in passing the assessment order dated 22.04.2025 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, and further assailed the said order on merits on the following grounds: - “1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of assessment, without adverting to the grounds and submissions made by the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to advert that there was no material seized or incriminating materials found during the search, unearthing any undisclosed income and therefore the Assessment had been wrongly completed u/s 153A of the Act 3. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the addition having not been made on the basis of any incriminating material, initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act itself is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that proviso to clause 153(1) states only in cases where assessment or reassessment is pending as on the date of initiation of search u/s 132 will only get abated. In the instance case, being no pending assessment on the date of search, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the relevant grounds. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact Appellant being a sub-contractor and having explained the cash deposit were made during the contract work he erred in upholding the addition of cash deposit of Rs.23,56,500/- as unexplained money. 6. The Appellant having declaring his income u/s 44AD of the Act, which statutory relieves the Appellant from maintaining books of accounts, adding Printed from counselvise.com "