MR. SUBASH KUMAR LAKHANKUMAR,MADHURANTHAGAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBRAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1586/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that after the FAA's remand, the AO verified Form-3 and Form-4 and accepted the assessee's claim, deleting the addition. Therefore, the issue before the Tribunal no longer survived.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared undisclosed income under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for AY 2017-18, stating that Form-3 and Form-4 were not furnished. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) remanded the matter to the AO for verification of these forms.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was justified in the absence of Form-3 and Form-4 under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016. Whether the issue had become infructuous due to subsequent actions by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 16.09.2026Pronounced: 16.09.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

- 2 - ITA No. 1586/CHNY/2026 Subash Kumar Lakhankumar 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee had declared income under Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (IDS, 2016) on 30.09.2016. For AY 2013-14, the assessee had declared undisclosed income at Rs.10,15,000/- under the head Diamond and precious stone. For AY 2014-15, the assessee had declared Rs.13,79,026/- under the head jewellery. The total taxes payable under the declaration is Rs.10,77,312/-. It is stated that assessee had paid the said amount on 29.11.2016, 23.03.2017 & 20.09.2017. For the AY 2017-18 assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order 24.03.2022, making an addition of Rs.23,94,026/- u/s. 69 of the Act, being the income declared under IDS, 2016 for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The addition was made on the ground that the assessee had not furnished Form-3 and Form-4 under IDS, 2016 and, consequently, the income declared under the scheme was brought to tax in AY 2017-18.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order completed for AY 2017-18 by bringing to tax a sum of Rs.23,94,026/-, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA restored the matter to the AO by observing, in absence of Form-3 & Form-4, it is not clear whether assessee had discharged the tax liability arising under IDS, 2016. Therefore, AO is directed to verify Form-3 & Form-4, if any issued by the

- 3 - ITA No. 1586/CHNY/2026 Subash Kumar Lakhankumar Competent Authority, for the declaration made under IDS, 2016 for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 and take a decision in accordance with law.

4.

Aggrieved by the above order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR has placed on record a copy of the order of ITO giving effect to the impugned order of the FAA. The Ld.AR by referring to the same stated that Form-3 & Form-4 of the IDS, 2016 was duly uploaded. However, same was not taken note by the FAA and was remanded to the AO for verification of the same. It was further submitted that, upon verification of Form-3 and Form-4, the AO accepted the assessee’s claim and deleted the addition made u/s.69A of the Act.

5.

The Ld.DR was duly heard.

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The assessee had made declaration under IDS, 2016 on 30.09.2016 disclosing total undisclosed income for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 at Rs.23,94,026/-. Since assessee had not produced Form-3 & Form4, evidencing tax payable under IDS, 2016, the AO made an addition of Rs.23,94,026/- u/s.69A of the Act while completing the assessment for AY 2017-18. Pursuant to the directions of the FAA, the

- 4 - ITA No. 1586/CHNY/2026 Subash Kumar Lakhankumar AO verified Form-3 and Form-4 and, upon such verification, deleted the addition made u/s.69A of the Act. In view of the subsequent order passed by the AO giving effect to the order of the FAA, the issue raised by the assessee before us no longer survives. Accordingly, the present appeal is rendered infructuous and is dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (इंटूर� रामा राव) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 16th September, 2026 JPV, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT- Chennai/Madurai/Salem/Coimbatore 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed by PRASANNA PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.09.17 14:12:11 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →