NUJU BASHEER,ALAPPUZHA V. ITO WARD 3 , ALAPPUZHA

ITA 550/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nuju Basheer, an individual engaged in dairy farming and agriculture, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (AO) noticed a cash deposit of Rs. 9,50,000 in specified bank notes during the demonetisation period and issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, demanding an explanation for the source of the deposits. The appellant failed to comply, leading the AO to tax Rs. 7,45,000 as unexplained investment under section 69. The CIT(A) partially accepted the appellant's appeal, treating 50% of the deposits made before demonetisation as explained but confirmed the addition for the remaining amount. The Tribunal dismissed the further appeal by the assessee, finding no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717319 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 550/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nuju Basheer .......... Appellant Kannelapuzhakkal, Ayaparambu Cheruthana P.O.. Alappuzha 690517 [PAN: BIWPB7526F] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-3, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 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 27.11.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of dairy farming, cultivation of coconuts and paddy, etc. No regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2017-18. However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha (hereinafter called \"the AO\"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit in specified bank notes (SBN) of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 550/Coch/2025 Nuju Basheer 9,50,000/- during demonetisation period in the account maintained with the Federal Bank, issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling upon the appellant to file return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act nor filed the information called for. In the circumstances the AO brought to tax the cash out of total deposits made of Rs. 9,50,000/-, an amount of Rs. 7,45,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order treated 50% of the cash deposits before demonetisation period as explained and the balance addition was confirmed. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 6. I find that the AO made the addition on account of cash deposits in SBN made during demonetisation period as unexplained investment of the appellant for the failure of the assessee to prove the source of cash deposits. However, even before the CIT(A) the appellant had not filed any explanation in support of the said cash deposits. The CIT(A), however, considering the facts, 50% treated of the cash deposits made prior to the demonetisation period as Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 550/Coch/2025 Nuju Basheer explained and the balance addition was confirmed. In the absence of any evidence, the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and also find no merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 11th August, 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 "