SHANMUGASUNDARAM,ERODE V. ACIT, WARD-2(3), ERODE

ITA 2749/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Shanmugasundaram, against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention revolves around the assessee's claim of cash deposits which were not accepted during the assessment proceedings. The assessee argued that due to miscommunication and health issues, he was unable to provide necessary explanations and documents to justify the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer had initially treated the cash deposit of Rs.23,54,776 as unexplained money and added Rs.2,01,500 under income from non-speculative business. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment, leading to the current appeal.

• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N.C.RAVIKRISHNAN VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”सी” \u000fा यपीठ चे\u0014ई म\u0017। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “C” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. . . . / / / / ITA No.2749/CHNY/2025 नधा\u000fरण वष\u000f / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shanmugasundaram, 31, Mariamman Kovil Street, Punjai Kalamanagalam, Erode – 638153 V s The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-2(3), Erode. PAN: AQQPS4161G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. N.C.Ravikrishnan – Advocate(Virtual) Revenue by Ms. R Anitha – Addl.CIT Date of hearing 17/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/03/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of The Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-4, Mumbai dated 12.09.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2749/CHNY/2025 [A] 2 2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The action of the Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) stating that the appellant had not justified its claim of cash deposits is not correct in as much as the appellant though wanted to establish the claim was prevented from doing it by the professional people who represented at that stage citing the technical grounds. Though the details are submitted in the assessment stage itself evident from paragraph 10 of the assessment order, the assessing officer failed to appreciate the same which was again upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). 2. The Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the fact that, the appellant was prevented from filing the details of the cash deposits because of miscommunication by the Authorised Representative appointed. Moreover, the appellant was admitted to Hospital for his Heart health and hence could not concentrate on these matters. 3. The Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the case of the appellant by stating that, \"the appellant had not justified his claim of cash deposits during the assessment proceedings and not adjudicated any specific grounds regarding the disallowance of cash deposits\", without even considering the circumstance under which the appellant was unable to offer his explanation. PRAYER: Hence, it is prayed that, for these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, additional grounds and evidences may be permitted and allowed and another opportunity be given through this forum to explain the details of cash deposits and the appeal may be heard on merits of the case and Justice rendered.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2749/CHNY/2025 [A] 3 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular return of income under provisions of section 139 of the Act, was filed for the assessment year 2013-14. Based on the information that the appellant made a cash deposit of Rs.23,54,776/- in the savings bank account maintained with Karur Vysya Bank, the Assessing Officer formed the opinion that the income escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 27.03.2018. The appellant neither complied to the notice u/s.148 nor the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with framing the assessment order with best judgment assessment vide order dated 31.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.25,56,276/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit of Rs.23,54,776/- as unexplained money and also made addition of Rs.2,01,500/- under income from non speculative business. 4. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) contending that there are no valid grounds for reopening the assessment and the assessment order is barred by limitation. However, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2749/CHNY/2025 [A] 4 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. During the course of hearing of appeal, the appellant raised the following Additional Grounds of appeal : “The Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the fact that, the appellant's sources were all explainable and the opportunity of explaining the same prevented because of was miscommunication by the Authorised Representative appointed\". \"The Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the case of the appellant by stating that, \"the appellant had not justified his claim of cash deposits during the assessment proceedings and not adjudicated any specific grounds regarding the disallowance of cash deposits \", without even considering the circumstance under which the appellant was unable to offer his explanation\". 7. The other grounds of appeal were not pressed during the course of hearing of appeal. 8. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are satisfied with the reasons for not raising the additional grounds of appeal before ld.CIT(A), therefore, we admit the additional grounds of appeal and remit the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide this additional ground of appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. We order accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2749/CHNY/2025 [A] 5 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 25th March, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क\u0017 \u0018 त\u001aल\u001bप अ े\u001bषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. \u0010वभागीय \u0015त\u0015न\u0017ध, आयकर अपील\u001bय अ\u0017धकरण, “सी” ब च, चे\"नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. 5. गाड% फ़ाइल / Guard File. Printed from counselvise.com "