SUGUMAR SUVITHA,TIRUCHENGODE V. ITO, WARD-1, TIRUCHENGODE

ITA 2535/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sugumar Suvitha against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention was the correctness of the total credits in the bank account as assessed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the figures provided by the Assessing Officer and the assessee's submissions were partly accepted, leading to a revised assessment of the taxable income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107461 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATRAMAN; BY VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2535/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sugumar Suvitha, 155/1, Oduvampalayam, Kuppandapalayam, Tiruchengode, Tamil Nadu 637 205. [PAN:CEIPS5234L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tiruchengode. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA by virtual ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 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 26.07.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 6 days. The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. explains the reason for the delay and submits that due to the circumstances beyond her control, the I.T.A. No.2535/Chny/24 2 assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. He further submits that delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful not wanton and prayed to condone the short delay. Upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. At the outset, the ld. AR brought to our notice that the figure of total credits in the bank account as found by the Assessing Officer at ₹.23,07,231/- is not correct and drew our attention to the total cash deposits as on 31.03.2011, as provided in the written submissions, at ₹.18,07,000/-. He prayed to declare the figure of amount of ₹.23,07,231/- is not correct and treat ₹.18,07,000/- as correct figure. The ld. DR Smt. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT did not dispute the same. Therefore, we proceed to treat the total cash credit as on 31.03.2011 is only at ₹.18,07,000/- but not ₹.23,07,231/-. I.T.A. No.2535/Chny/24 3 5. Further, the ld. AR drew our attention to the details of withdrawals as provided in page 2 of the written submissions and prayed for benefit of said withdrawals to an extent of ₹.6,00,000/- and set off of opening cash balance as on 01.04.2010. The ld. AR further submits by referring to page 1 of the written submissions and prayed to adopt peak credit concept at ₹.5,02,996/- as on 30.10.2010 or 50% of the cash deposits after granting benefit of withdrawal and set off of opening capital. The ld. DR fairly conceded to give benefit of withdrawals thereto in view of the financial year being 15 years old. 6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the records, we find the details of withdrawals as reflecting at page 2 of the written submissions, which are not disputed and in our opinion, requires to be given benefit. However, we find no details of opening capital placed on record as on the last day of the financial year. Therefore, the request for set off of opening balance is rejected. The remaining amount of ₹.12,07,000/- [₹.18,07,000 – 6,00,000] is to be assessed to tax. Since the ld. AR submitted assessee’s inability to furnish explanation for the source of said cash deposit in view of old financial year of 15 years, we accept the submissions of the ld. AR in adopting 50% of ₹.12,07,000/- i.e., I.T.A. No.2535/Chny/24 4 ₹.6,07,000/- as income of the assessee and it is chargeable to tax. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 26th February, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 26.02.2025 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. "