NIRMALA THOMAS,GUDALUR V. ITO, WARD-1, OOTY

ITA 672/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Nirmala Thomas against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, which confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,892 as undisclosed income under section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer based on discrepancies between the agricultural income reported by the assessee and the total credits in her bank accounts. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including the joint bank account details and the tax returns of her husband, Saji Thomas, who also reported agricultural income. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities had not correctly appreciated the facts and evidence, leading to the decision to allow the appeal and remove the disputed addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787383 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S. GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.672/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Nirmala Thomas No.12/342-A G.V.Estate, Thorapalli, Gudalur, Tamil Nadu-643 212 [PAN: AETPT3435K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ooty. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri S.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024--25 / 1072382085(1) dated 21.01.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2022-23. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 The only issue raised by the assessee through its grounds of appeal is regarding an addition of Rs.92,95,892/- made by the Ld.AO as Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.672/Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 6 undisclosed income u/s 56 of the Act and its confirmation by the Ld.First Appellate Authority. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee took us through brief factual matrix of this case. The case was selected to verify the genuineness of agricultural income disclosed by the assessee. It was noted that the agricultural income disclosed during the year was at variance with figures of preceding years. The Ld.AO has made such observations on page 4 of the assessment orders and concluded that there is a prima-facie case of exaggeration of the figures. The Ld.AO also noted that the assessee had shown total agricultural receipts of Rs.1,95,99,538/- and expenditure of Rs.1,14,61,979/- so as to offer net exempt agricultural income of Rs.81,37,559/-. The Ld.AO observed that there are total credits of Rs.2,90,03,302/- in the bank accounts maintained by the assessee with South Indian Bank, Union Bank of India and the Canara Bank. Consequently, the difference between Rs.2,90,03,302/- minus Rs.1,95,99,538/- being Rs.92,95,892/- was treated as undisclosed income and added. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee contested saying that two bank accounts were held jointly by the assessee with her husband and that therefore the receipts thereof pertain to her husband and cannot be attributed to the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) concluded that the assessee has merely reiterated her arguments made before the Ld.AO but did not bring on record any new facts. It was concluded as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.672/Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 6 “…..5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is submitted that two of the bank accounts were joint accounts with the spouse wherein his agricultural receipts are also credited for which the spouse has filed return of income with gross agricultural income of Rs.80,85,710/- and copy of ITR and his tax computation statement declaring this income was submitted. 5.3 I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen from the submissions of the appellant that the appellant's account is a joint account and the credits are including the agricultural receipts of her husband Sri Saji Thomas. In this regard the appellant had filed reconciliation statement and the joint bank account copies, ITR filed in respect of Sri Saji Thomas and computation of income. 5.3.1 The appellant had reiterated the facts narrated before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. No new facts were brought on record during the present proceedings. It is a fact that the appellant's husband Sri Saji Thomas has filed the ITR and he is also having the agricultural income. But, the appellant has not proved to the satisfaction of the Assessing officer that the amount deposited in the bank account belongs to her husband's agricultural receipts. Though the AO has asked to submit the bifurcation of the agricultural receipts, the assesse has not provided the same. In order to prove the genuineness of the transactions, the appellant would have filed the land receipts, sale bills of crop, expenses claimed, etc., in the case of Sri Saii Thomas also. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. The onus always lies on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Since the appellant did not come forward with any new facts with supporting evidences/ information responding to the notices issued, I am not convinced with the contentions/ arguments of the appellant in this regard. 5.3.2 After the Department detected cash deposit in the bank account notice was given and the appellant filed submissions claiming the amount as her husband's agricultural receipts. During the scrutiny assessment, she has to file sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim. In the absence of basic proof it is not possible to accept the cash deposits in bank as pertaining to Sri Saji Thomas. The appellant has not filed any such evidence to prove that the cash deposits belong to her husband. In view of the above facts, I have no reason to interfere with the decision of the Assessing officer and hence the addition of Rs.92,95,892/- is upheld. All the Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed. 6. In nutshell, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed…..” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.672/Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 6 3.0 The Ld council for the assessee has vehemently argued that the proceeds in joint bank account belong to her husband Sh Saji Thomas and have been duly disclosed by him in his tax returns . It was argued that the addition in her hands therefore tantamounts to double taxation . The Ld council placed on record a voluminous paper book in support of its arguments. 4.0 The Ld DR supported the order of lower authorities and held the view that sufficient evidences have not been brought on record by the assessee to establish her truthfulness. It was contended that no details of land holding, agriculture sale proceeds etc have placed on records. It was also argued that in impugned joint bank accounts , Sh Saji Thomas was merely a nominee and not a joint bank account holder. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions on the matter in the light of material available on records. The scrutiny assessment was undertaken to examine the veracity of agricultural income of the assessee. There were indications that the income declared during the year was at variance with earlier years. The abnormal increase in the agricultural income prima-facie raises a needle of suspicion about the same being attributable to other sources. There have been variance in the total receipts credited to the bank account viz a viz total agricultural receipts disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has placed on records details indicate that her husband is a regular Income Tax Assessee disclosing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.672/Chny/2025 Page - 5 - of 6 agricultural income. The assessee has through its paper book placed detailed reconciliation of its agricultural sales at pages 173 onwards. The details of Income Tax Return of her husband for AY-2022-23 is placed at pages 194 to 196 of the paper book. Page 196 shows that gross agricultural receipts were of Rs.80,85,710/-. The argument of the Revenue that the assessee’s husband is only a nominee in the bank account are not correct as the copies placed on page 157 and 167 of the paper book clearly demonstrate that the name of assessee’s husband being Saji Thomas is mentioned as Joint Account holder. True he is also shown as nominee but that cannot be a bar for a person to be simultaneously a joint account holder also. It is not the case of the Revenue that the husband of the assessee is not showing agricultural income or is not assessed to tax. The Revenue on its part has also failed to conclusively prove that the receipts shown by the assessee in joint accounts do not belong to her husband. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order of the lower authorities is not based upon correct understanding and appreciation of the facts of the case. The assessee has been able to place on record sufficient evidences to allude that her husband is disclosing agricultural income and that she is having a joint account with her husband. The order of lower authorities is therefore set aside and the Ld.AO is directed to delete the impugned Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.672/Chny/2025 Page - 6 - of 6 addition of Rs.92,95,892/-. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed Order pronounced on 21st , November-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (ABY T VARKEY) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 21st , November-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF Printed from counselvise.com "