SRI VEERARAGHAVAN MANNAPPANAICKAR,KANCHIPURAM V. ITO, NCW-22(5), TAMBARAM

ITA 2468/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Veeraraghavan Mannappa Nacikar, the appellant, who contested the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Tambaram, Chennai, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue arose from the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 19,90,000 made during the demonetisation period, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained investments under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant claimed these deposits were from the sale proceeds of agricultural produce, a claim not substantiated by adequate evidence such as books of accounts or corroborative materials. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal due to non-appearance, leading to this further appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29278 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: R.VISWANATHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल ,लेखा सद˟ एवं माननीय ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2468/Chny/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Veeraraghavan Mannappa Nacikar, 1,Kunnathur Village, Manamai P.O., Kalpakkam, Chennai 603 102. [PAN: AKVPM 6144] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(5) Tambaram. (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A., Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067107862(1) dated 29.07.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Tambaram, Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 11.12.2019. 2 ITA No.2468/Chny/2024 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income for the asst. year 2017-18 on 30/12/2017 admitting a total income of Rs.3,62,180/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24/09/2018 was duly served on the assessee and notice u/s 142(1) of the act was also issued on 12/07/2019 calling for certain details through e-proceedings. In response to the notices issued, assessee furnished only the bank statements. On verification of the bank statements the ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 19,90,000/- during demonetisation period. The assessee vide his letter dt. 28/11/209 explained that the cash deposits made in the bank accounts are out of sale proceeds of agricultural produce. The ld. Assessing Officer found from the return of income filed the assessee has admitted only Rs. 1,97,500/- as agricultural income. The assessee has not produced any corroborative material evidences such as vouchers, bills or books of accounts to prove that the cash deposited with bank during the Demonetisation period of 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 are out of sale proceeds. Hence, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits made into the bank during the demonetisation period as the Unexplained investments of the assessee as per the provisions of the Section 69 of the Act and accordingly a sum of Rs. 19,90,000/- is assessed as income of the assessee under the head \"Unexplained Investments found in Bank account and is assessed to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3 ITA No.2468/Chny/2024 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits, since the assessee failed to appear before him despite three notices sent. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It was found that assessee has not submitted any books of accounts, cash receipt, cash flow statement and name of the buyers who purchased agricultural produce before the Assessing Officer. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before the ld. AO to file necessary documents and prosecute hix case. We are also conscious of the fact that the assessee has not filed the requisite response before the AO. Hence, the assessee is directed to substantiate his case forthwith without any fail, failing which AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal as per law. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल) (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER चेɄई Chennai: िदनांक Dated : 25-11-2024 KV आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF "