VENKOBA MAHESH KUMAR,CHENNAI V. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-9(2), CHENNAI

ITA 275/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Venkoba Mahesh Kumar, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of \\u20b922,47,615 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. This amount represented unexplained sources of credit card payments. The Assessing Officer had initially added this amount to the assessee's income after he failed to explain the source of the funds used for credit card payments totaling \\u20b927,61,920, of which only \\u20b95,14,305 was explained. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's detailed submissions and the Assessing Officer's remand report, leading to the decision to remit the case for fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107925 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SASIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ Ɋायपीठ,चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े., उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.: 275/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Venkoba Mahesh Kumar, Old No. 24, New No. 20, Dr. Natesan Road, 3rd Lane, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005. [PAN: AIIPM-6975-C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward - 9(2), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 18.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.10.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 30 days. The assessee filed petition in support of an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both the :-2-: ITA. No: 275/Chny/2025 parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of ₹.22,47,615/- being the value of credit card payments under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income declaring an income of ₹.11,46,790/-. Against statutory notices, the assessee furnished various details. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made credit card payment amounting to ₹.27,61,920/- out of which he has explained source only for ₹.5,14,305/-. Since the assessee could not explain the source for the balance amount of ₹.22,47,615/-, the Assessing Officer treated the same as income from unexplained sources and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and furnish various details including fresh evidence. In order to satisfy the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, the ld. CIT(A) sought for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, vide :-3-: ITA. No: 275/Chny/2025 his letter dated 12.01.2024 submitted detailed remand report is reproduced at para 4.3 of the impugned order. However, without considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, submits that the ld. CIT(A) erroneously sustained the addition being the value of credit card payments made during the assessment year under consideration. He drew our attention to page 3 to 6 of the impugned order and vehemently argued that despite relevant submissions of the assessee were reproduced in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the explanations offered by the assessee. Further, he drew our attention to para 4.3 of the impugned order, wherein, the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer is reproduced, but, however, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the remand report and simply confirmed the addition and prayed that the matter may be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 8. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. :-4-: ITA. No: 275/Chny/2025 9. Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee explained the source for ₹.5,14,305/- out of ₹.27,61,920/- towards credit card payment and thereby, the Assessing Officer treated the balance amount of ₹.22,47,615/- as income from unexplained sources under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. We note that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has submitted detailed written submissions along with fresh evidences which is reflected at 3 to 6 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) also obtained remand report from the Assessing Officer and reproduced the same at para 4.3 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) called for rejoinder from the assessee to the remand report of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessee made submission, which is reproduced at para 4.3.1 of the impugned order. Further, we note that without considering the submissions of the assessee and other details such as bank statement, jewel loan statement, etc. furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, is not justified. Under the above facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and pass order in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to furnish complete details before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. :-5-: ITA. No: 275/Chny/2025 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 20th March, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजŊ जॉजŊ क े.) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाȯƗ /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर.रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 20th March, 2025 Vm/- आदेशकीŮितिलिपअŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "