RAMESH POTNURU,SRIKAKULAM V. ADDL JCIT APPEALS, THIRUVANATAPURAM

ITA 661/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramesh Potnuru, an individual engaged in the business as an authorized dealer of Airtel Network, who appealed against the order of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention in the appeal was the addition of Rs. 3,43,500 as unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period, which the AO had added to the income. Initially, the CIT(A) deleted the addition under 'business income' but confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,43,500. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, stating that the Cochin Bench lacked the authority to hear the case as the AO was based in Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23433 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 1, PCIT v. MSPL Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 280
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA MANOJNA
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 661/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Potnuru .......... Appellant 2-104, Main Road, Lolugu Srikakulam 532168, AP [PAN: CPHPP8568V] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 .......... Respondent 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Srikakulam 532001 Appellant by: Ms. Krishna Manojna, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.01.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 28.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of authorised dealer of Airtel Network. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 05.08.2017 and the same was revised on 08.08.2019 disclosing income of Rs. 2,80,710/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by 2 ITA No. 661/Coch/2024 Ramesh Potnuru the Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Srikakulam (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 23.12.2019 at a total income of Rs. 9,38,970/- . While doing so, the AO made addition or unexplained money of Rs,3,43,500/- for failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 3,43,500/- during demonetisation period. The AO also made addition of Rs. 3,14,760/- under the head ‘business income’ by estimating the total income at 5% of the gross receipts as against the income shown by the assessee at Rs. 3,14.760/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order deleted the addition made under the head business income. He, however, confirmed the addition of Rs. 3.43,500/- made as unexplained cash deposit. 4. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset I find that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the preset appeal. The appeal does not lie before the Cochin Bench, since the assessment order is passed by the AO situated at Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the situs of the AO as per notification No. F. 63 dated 24.04.2019 issued under the Standing Order under Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It is also relevant to make a reference to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 1 3 ITA No. 661/Coch/2024 Ramesh Potnuru (SC) and PCIT v. MSPL Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 280 (SC) wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who pass the assessment order. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, the appeal filed by the assessee does not lie before this Bench. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed invoking the principle of Coram Non Judice. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 29th January, 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 By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "