SURAKUMAR SANKU,TRIVANDRUM V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 199/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals by Sri. Surakumar Sanku against the orders of the CIT(A)-3, Kochi, concerning assessments under sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. The primary issue in these appeals was the addition of unexplained cash deposits and other income sources such as new connections and subscriptions. The Tribunal noted the absence of satisfactory explanations or cogent evidence from the assessee regarding the unexplained cash deposits totaling significant amounts for each assessment year. However, it found that the application of the telescoping method could lead to the deletion of other additions once the primary issue was addressed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38423 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V.SWARNALATHA

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA No.197/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.198/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.199/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.200/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 Sri.Surakumar Sanku TC-30/759(1), Sreelakshmi KNRA 342, Puthen Road, Pettah Kaniyavilakom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 024 PAN : ARUPS1965R. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Cir.1 Thiruvananthapuram. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s four appeals arise against the orders of the CIT(A)-3, Kochi in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter, assessment year-wise, respectively:- Sr. No. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date 1 197/Coch/2024 2007-2008 ITBA/APL/S/250/.2023- 24/1056314683(1) 20.09.2023 2 198/Coch/2024 2009-2010 ITBA/APL/S/250/.2023- 24/1056318146(1) 20.09.2023 3 199/Coch/2024 2010-2011 ITBA/APL/S/250/.2023- 24/1056319812(1) 20.09.2023 ITA Nos.197-200/Coch/2024 Sri.Surakumar Sanku. 2 4 200/Coch/2024 2011-2012 ITBA/APL/S/250/.2023- 24/1056321166(1) 20.09.2023 Cases called twice. None appears at the behest of the assessee. We proceed ex-parte against the assessee therefore. 2. Delay of 52 days is condoned considering the assessee’s condonation petitions, supported by affidavit(s) explaining the delay(s) as well as going by the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to assessee’s identical pleadings in all these cases, wherein both the lower authorities have made four additions of income from new connections, subscription, sec.69A and unexplained bank deposits; involving varying sums. We note in this peculiar circumstances that the first and foremost substantive ground made in assessee’s case is that unexplained money deposits to tune of Rs.2,22,500, Rs.1,11,582, Rs.6,72,009 and Rs.9,10,000, respectively, wherein it emerges that there was not even a satisfactory explanation much less that supported by cogent evidence filed before the lower authorities. That being the case, we see no merit in assessee’s instant first and foremost substantive ITA Nos.197-200/Coch/2024 Sri.Surakumar Sanku. 3 ground challenging the impugned cash deposits addition. Rejected accordingly. 4. So far as all the remaining additions are concerned, the Revenue could hardly dispute that going by telescoping method, nothing survives as the first and foremost ground of unexplained cash deposits covers all the remaining additions which stand deleted in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law in very terms. 5. These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.197, 198, 199 and 200/Coch/2024 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of the common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07th Day of November, 2024. Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin ; Dated : 07th November, 2024. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT Concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin "