SAMEER MOIDU,CALICUT V. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

ITA 1110/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Sameer Moidu against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,97,244 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the AO, who rejected the appellant's explanation that the cash deposits during the demonetisation period were from rental income received in cash. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the appellant's explanations and the lack of rebuttal from the revenue, decided in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and directing the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23415 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 1110/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sameer Moidu .......... Appellant Noor Mahal, Feroke, Kozhikode 673631 [PAN: AKKPM0266G] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(3), Kozhikode Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), 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. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 20.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 8,93,450/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 04.12.2019at a total income of Rs. 15,90,690/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 6,97,244/- being the amount of cash deposited in bank during 2 ITA No. 1110/Coch/2024 Sameer Moidu demonetisation period rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the cash was deposited out of the rental income received in cash. 3. During demonetisation period the appellant made cash deposit in South Indian Bank Ltd., Kasaragod of Rs. 12,00,000/- on 14.11.2016 and also deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- with HFC Bank Ltd., Kasaragod. The appellant submitted that the appellant received a total rent of Rs. 81,25,810/- out of which a sum of Rs. 74,23,054/- was subject to TDS. The AO presumed that the income which is subject to rental was received through cheque. Thus, only an amount of Rs. 7,02,756/- was considered as explained and the balance of Rs. 6,97,244/- was brought to tax. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO holding that the appellant had failed to substantiate with evidence that the appellant received rent amount of Rs. 15,50,110/- in cash. The CIT(A) also disbelieved the explanation that the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was received from Mr. V.K. Nazir as repayment of loan. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called 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. 7. The issue in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of cash deposit made during demonetisation period. During the demonetisation period the appellant made total cash 3 ITA No. 1110/Coch/2024 Sameer Moidu deposit of Rs. 14,00,000/- in the specified bank notes out of which the AO has accepted the explanation with regard to the amount of Rs. 7,02,756/- and the balance was brought to tax as unexplained money of the appellant. The appellant offered a explanation in respect of the cash deposit, stating that the appellant received the rental income in cash of Rs. 15,58,110/- and the same was deposited in the bank account. It was further stated that the loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- was repaid by one Mr. V.K. Nazir. There is no material brought on record to rebut the explanation of the assessee. In the circumstances the lower authorities should have accepted the explanation and treated the entire cash deposits as explained. Therefore, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 6,97,244/-. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th February, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 10th February, 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 "