SHRI SOHAN RAJ KHANTED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CRICLE- 4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 373/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 September 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee mistakenly omitted to disclose income from other sources in the relevant columns of the return, but had discharged the tax liability. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee omitted to fill in the details of income from other sources in the income tax return, although the entire tax liability including this income was paid. This omission led to the case being taken for scrutiny and additions being made by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO is justified when the assessee mistakenly omitted to disclose income from other sources but paid the entire tax liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 18.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sohan Raj Khanted, Vs. The DCIT, Non Corporate Ward 4(1), Shri Sohan Raj Khanted Gunvanth Chennai. Raj No. 17, Krishna Iyer Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 079, Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAFPK9519F] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 01.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2026 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 10.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018–19.

2.

We find the Registry, ITAT, Chennai Benches issued defect memo to assessee to file delay condonation to condone the delay of 758 days but we find no petition filed.

2 I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2026

3.

Ld. AR, Mr. D. Anand, Advocate, submits that there is no delay of 758 days and drew our attention to the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 34788/2023. He referred to para No. 12 of the said order and submits that the Hon’ble High Court has granted opportunity to the assessee to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from today before the appellate Tribunal and further observed that if any such appeal is filed, the same shall be numbered and entertained without reference to limitation, subject to compliance with all other conditions including pre-deposit of the fee, if any. Further, he drew our attention to the order of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 28.11.2025, wherein it was held that the Hon’ble High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal within a period of limitation. Further, he drew our attention to para No. 11 of the Division Bench order dated 18.12.2025, wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed that the period during which this petition remained pending shall be excluded in reckoning the period of limitation. Ld. AR argued that there was a delay of 758 days, but, however, he filed the appeal immediately after the date of receipt of order dated 18.12.2025. Therefore, we hold that there is no delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before us.

4.

On merits, at the outset, it is noted that the assessee is regularly assessed to income tax and his main source of income is income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee was filing his returns of income on his own without the assistance of the Chartered Accountant or tax consultant. It was argued by the Ld. AR that while filing the income tax return for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has omitted to fill in the details of income from other sources in the table in the income tax return. He drew our attention to page No. 11 of

3 I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2026

the impugned order, wherein, for the AY under consideration, the assessee has shown interest from Sunstar Estates and Hotels Private Limited, term deposit interest and savings bank interest, totalling to ₹06,09,88,848. We find the said disclosure has resulted in refund and the case was taken for scrutiny. He argued that though the assessee omitted to fill in the details of income from other sources, but, however, paid the entire tax liability including the income from other sources and drew our attention to the details in tabular form on page No. 12 of the impugned order. Further, referring to details of the same issue in AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20, which are earlier and subsequent years under consideration, he submits that the assessee discharged his tax liability for the taxable income from AY 2017-18 and also for AY 2019-20 and submits that there is no dispute with reference to the said details as reflected in pages Nos. 13 and 14 of the impugned order. He argued vehemently that the additions made by the AO, which were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), are not maintainable, i.e., only by mistake, the assessee could not fill up the details of income from other sources, but, however, discharged his tax liability by payment of advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax. He prayed to allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

5.

Ld. DR, Mr. Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr. AR, submits that the assessee is involved in multi-crore transactions and is also a substantial shareholder in M/s Sunstar Estates and Hotels Private Limited. The assessee had duly claimed credit for the corresponding TDS to his income in the return of income and also the AO has rightly made the additions under Section 15BBE of the Act. He vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld. AR and prayed to dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.

4 I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2026

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, we find no dispute with reference to the payment of taxes to an extent of ₹8,72,82,855, which is reflected in the second tabular form on page No. 12 of the impugned order, to the taxable income of ₹24,54,61,392, wherein admittedly the income from other sources is inclusive of the said taxable income, though it is not reflected in the relevant column in the return of income. We find no dispute with reference to the said details as reflected on pages Nos. 11 and 12 of the impugned order. Further, with reference to the earlier assessment as well as subsequent assessment, the details of which we find on pages Nos. 13 and 14 of the impugned order, as discussed above, we find no dispute with regard to the details of income from salary, income from other sources and taxable income thereon with reference to taxes paid by way of advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the assessee, though included the income under the head income from other sources in the taxable income, but, however, by mistake omitted to disclose the same in the relevant columns in the return of income. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the AO making addition under Section 69A of the Act. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

5 I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2026

Chennai, Dated, 18.09.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.09.23 15:15:32 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →