SIJU SANKARAN KUTTY,ERNAKULAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 2(3), ERRNAKUALM

ITA 417/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Siju Sankaran Kutty against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,76,000 as unexplained money in the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was based on cash deposits made during the demonetization period in a bank account. The assessee contended that these deposits were from earlier cash withdrawals and a loan of Rs. 20,00,000 from Mr. Umesh Mohanan, intended for a property purchase that did not materialize. The ITAT found the assessee's explanation plausible but required verification with bank statements, leading to the restoration of the matter to the AO for further assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713016 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARVATHY AMMAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 417/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Siju Sankaran Kutty, .......... Appellant T76A, Thrikkakara Temple Road, Soubhagya Nagar, Kochi. [PAN: CQXPK 4816 R] vs. ITO, Non-Corp, .......... Respondent Ward-2(3), Kochi Appellant by: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena La, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 01.04.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. Return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 28/07/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 3,71,670/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Non-Corp, Ward-2(3), Kochi (for short, 'AO') at a total income of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. 24,47,670/- . While doing so, the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 20,76,000/- being cash deposits made during demonetization period in the bank account held with Union Bank of India as unexplained money of the assessee for failure in proving genuineness of the explanation of the assessee that the said cash deposits were out of money of Rs. 20,00,000/- borrowed from one Mr.Umesh Mohanan for purchase of property, but the same has not been materialized, therefore, the amount was deposited in the bank account. It is further submitted that the said cash was withdrawn from the bank account earlier. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is contended that the cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawal earlier from the same bank account and, therefore, no addition is warranted. 6. On the other hand, ld.DR submitted that there was no evidence of cash withdrawal earlier, therefore, it cannot be treated that the deposits are made out of earlier withdrawals, hence, the addition is required to be sustained. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The issue that arises for my consideration is whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.20,76,000/- cash deposits made during demonetization period in the Union Bank of India. It is the contention of the assessee that he borrowed money from one Mr. Umesh Mohanan of Rs.20,00,000/- for the purpose of purchase of property, however, the transaction was not materialized, hence, the amount withdrawn again re-deposited in the same bank account and repaid the said money to the said person. The explanation offered by the assessee is plausible one, however, it requires verification with the bank statement and, therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for re-doing the assessment in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st July, 2025 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. vr/- 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 Printed from counselvise.com "