SASIKUMAR MURUGAN,VELLORE V. ITO, WARD-1, VELLORE

ITA 3635/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sasikumar Murugan, the appellant, who contested the additions made to his income by the Assessing Officer under sections 69A and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2022-23. The Assessing Officer had added various incomes and expenditures, significantly increasing the declared income from 11,71,410 to 1,76,44,877. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this assessment. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer had not considered all relevant bank accounts, particularly the ICICI Bank account, which contained crucial statements for a fair assessment. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and remanded the case for a fresh assessment including the overlooked bank statements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847361 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR; ERODE
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी इंट ूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3635/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sasikumar Murugan, No. 97, Marimanikuppam (PO), Marimanikuppam, B.O., Omakuppam, Vellore 635 710. [PAN: AMMPM6227B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Vellore. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The assessee raised 5 grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.3635/Chny/25 2 confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts as emanating from record is that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income declaring a total income of ₹.11,71,410/- on 29.07.2022. Under scrutiny, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment, inter alia, making addition on account of various income under section 69A and section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,76,44,877/-. The ld. CIT(A), in the first appeal, confirmed the same. 4. Before us, the ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate drew our attention to the paper book containing 67 pages and submits that the Assessing Officer, while assessing income of the assessee considered the expenditure incurred to pay credit card bills of CITI Bank, ICICI Bank Limited & SBI Cards by considering only two bank accounts of the assessee. He pointed that no consideration was given by the Assessing Officer to 3rd bank account and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 5. The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT reported no objection. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.3635/Chny/25 3 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A of the Act in the absence of substantial documentary evidence, which is evident from para 3.3.2 at page 8 of the assessment order. Further, an addition under section 69C of the Act was also made for not proving the source of expenditure on account of credit card bills vide para 3.3.3 at page 9 of the assessment order. Therefore, it is clear that there was no evidence furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as in the first appellate proceeding. On an examination of the paper book filed by the assessee, it is noted that the account statement in respect of ICICI Bank ltd. from page 35 to 67, as it is admittedly not before the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. We find the same is necessary for fair adjudication of the issues on hand. Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld. AR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer shall consider ICICI Bank statement, which is at page 35 to 67 of the paper book and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.3635/Chny/25 4 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th March, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.03.2026 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "