RAMAN,KANCHEEPURAM V. ASSESSING OFFICER, KANCHEEPURAM

ITA 908/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Raman against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs.10,01,501 to Mr. Raman's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was based on unaccounted cash deposits in a bank account purportedly held by Mr. Raman at 'Andhra Bank' during the demonetization period. Mr. Raman contended that he did not have an account in 'Andhra Bank' and that the deposits in his accounts at 'Indian Bank' and 'Canara Bank' were from his agricultural income. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not provided adequate opportunity to Mr. Raman to contest the additions and that the issue of the existence of an account in 'Andhra Bank' needed further clarification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712236 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUNKUMAR MANOHARAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.908/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Raman, No.28 Nallur, Kollamedu, Mullikulathur (P.O.), Thirukalukundram-603 109. v. The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-22(5), Tambaram. [PAN: BWIPR 2945 C] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Arunkumar Manoharan, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : DR is on leave सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 23.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.908/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Raman :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessment order has been passed without giving opportunity to the assessee. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee was asked source of cash deposits made in assessee’s bank account in ‘Andhra Bank’ during the year under consideration. Finding no response from the assessee, the AO has made the addition of Rs.10,01,501/- by order dated 16.12.2019 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). According to the Ld.AR, during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee had brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that he doesn’t have any account in ‘Andhra Bank’ and had only account in ‘Indian Bank & Canara Bank’ and filed relevant documents & written submissions to explain the source of deposit in his bank accounts was his agricultural income. The Ld.CIT(A) having acknowledged that the assessee filed bank statements in respect to bank accounts maintained with ‘Indian Bank & Canara Bank’ and also explained the source of deposits in it, but found fault with the assessee not giving explanation about the source of SBN’s deposited in his ‘Andhra Bank’ and so was pleased to confirm the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee doesn’t have any account in ‘Andhra Bank’ and hence asking him to prove the negative is impossible. According to the Ld.AR, neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) has given any proof or a copy of the bank statement in the name of assessee in ‘Andhra Bank’. Therefore, the addition made on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.908/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Raman :: 3 :: assumption that assessee was having bank account in Andhra Bank and deposited SBN’s in it was erroneous and the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) has been passed without any application of mind. Therefore, for the interest of justice, he prays that the assessment need to be de- novo framed by the AO after giving proper opportunity to the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). 3. Having heard the Ld.AR and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the AO taking note that the assessee has deposited in his bank account cash of more than Rs.10 lakhs during demonetization period issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act calling for the RoI, which according to the AO was not responded to by the assessee. Therefore, he issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the ‘Andhra Bank’ and collected the bank statement which showed that there was total credit of Rs.10,01,733/- in the bank account and that cash deposits during the demonetization period was to the tune of Rs.10,01,501/- and the balance credit was only Rs.232/-. Therefore, he added the amount deposited during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs. Rs.10,01,501/- u/s.69 of the Act by framing best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that he is an agriculturalist, who derived income only from agricultural activities and that receipts are in cash. According to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.908/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Raman :: 4 :: assessee, since demonetization was declared, he deposited the accumulated cash (SBNs) in his savings bank accounts maintained with ‘Indian Bank & Canara Bank’ and to support it, filed bank statement along with written submissions and other documents. The Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have acknowledged that the assessee filed bank statement of ‘Indian Bank & Canara Bank’; but since the assessee failed to give any explanation with respect to source of cash deposits in ‘Andhra Bank’, he confirmed the action of the AO. Before us, the assessee has filed statement of accounts maintained with ‘Indian Bank & Canara Bank’ and asserts that he doesn’t have any bank account in ‘Andhra Bank’ which fact needs clarification. We find that the assessee has filed several documents to prove the nature and source of cash deposits/SBNs as agricultural income, which fact has not been verified by the AO. From a perusal of the assessment order, it reveals that the AO has passed an ex parte order qua assessee without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to share the bank statement of the assessee supposed to have been received by the AO from ‘Andhra Bank’ u/s 133(6) and dispel the doubt about it. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all the relevant Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.908/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Mr. Raman :: 5 :: documents/written submissions to prove the source of SBNs/cash deposit of Rs.10 lakhs in his bank accounts and if the assessee is able to prove that he is an agriculturalist, who derived income from agricultural activities and that receipts from it are in cash and is able to explain the source of SBN’s as agricultural income, then no adverse view to be taken against the assessee. The AO to pass assessment order accordingly, in accordance to law, after hearing the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 30th day of July, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 30th July, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "