SITHURAJ ASHOK,VELAGOUNDAMPALAYAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(6), SALEM

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री यस. यस. विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 702/Chny/2026 यनिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18

Sithuraj Ashok v. Income Tax Officer, No.2-48, Velagoundampalayam, Ward-1(6), Naduvaneri, PO Sankari, Salem, Salem. Tamil Nadu-637 504. [PAN: BUKPA7524E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. S. R. Srikrishna, C.A, Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) / NFAC, (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi dated 15.05.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2017-18.

GROUDS OF APPEAL 1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is wrong, illegal, opposed to law, facts, judicial interpretation, principles, submissions made, details available on record, conventions and the additions sustained is to be cancelled. 2. ADDITION u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE IS INCORRECT: In Law, facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming additions of Rs. 16, 55,500/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.

ITA No.702/Chny/2026 (2017-18) Sithuraj Ashok 3. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THERE IS DOUBLE ADDITION: The Learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to note that the Assessing officer having accepted business income, cannot make additions of the same transaction u/s 69A of the Act 4. CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT HIGHER RATE OF TAX U/S 115BBE IS ONLY FROM AY- 2018-19: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to note that amendment applying higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act will apply only from AY-2018-19 and not for the year under appeal. 5. PRAYER: The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds of appeal / Additional evidences, if any at the time of hearing and it is prayed that the contested addition be deleted, tax demand.be cancelled 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return during the year under consideration, but the Revenue was in possession of an information that the assessee has deposited Rs. 29, 82,000/- into his bank account. Based, on this information a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued but even till the last date, i.e. 31.03.2018 the assessee has not filed any return. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 144 of the Act by making additions of Rs. 3, 77,100/- and Rs. 16, 55,500/- u/s. 28 and 69A of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the appeal filed by the assessee before us was time barred by 555 days, on this issue the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay alongwith a duly attested affidavit vide page nos. 5 to 12 of the paper book. We have gone through the contents of the same and find the same to be accepted. Hence, the delay of 555 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. It is observed that the finding of the AO that the assessee has not filed any return of the income is found to be baseless, as the assessee has submitted a copy of the return filed before us u/s. 139(4) of the Act vide page no. 70 of the paper book, wherein the assessee has declared an income of Rs. 4,34,819/- on 04.10.2019 (before claiming deduction of Rs. 57,719/- under chapter VI-A of the Act), i.e. before passing the order u/s. 144 of the Act. This amount of income declared by the

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.702/Chny/2026 (2017-18) Sithuraj Ashok assessee in the return filed in pursuance of the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act is sufficient to cover the business income estimated by the AO, hence the separate addition of Rs. 3,77,100/- made by the AO u/s. 28 of the Act is liable to be deleted. The AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 3, 77,100/- made u/s. 28 of the Act. 5. Next addition made by the AO pertains to deposit of SBNs amounting to Rs. 16, 55,500/- relying on the Notification of Ministry of Finance, Dept. Of Economic Affairs, dated: 24.11.2016 under SO 3544(E). Other than relying on the Notification mentioned (supra), no separate finding on the facts of the case is found to be there. The AO also did not consider nature of the business of the assessee. While examining the issue under consideration, we gone through the para 11.1 of the assessment order, wherein the AO has confirmed the availability of the financial statements and bank statements of the assessee and accepted that all the cash deposits made in the bank accounts by his clients were correspondingly debited to M/s. Aircel Limited in the Axis Bank Account, i.e. it is not the deposits made by him other than business transactions. 6. When such a specific finding is there and the AO simply relying on the Notification mentioned (supra), the addition of Rs. 16, 55,500/- can’t be sustained u/s. 69A of the Act, hence the same is directed to be deleted. In view of the above observations and directions, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and the AO is directed to delete the additions other than income suo-moto declared by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced on the 18th day of August, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (यस. यस. विश्वनेत्र रवि) (गगन गोयल ) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (GAGAN GOYAL) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 18th August, 2026. KB

Page 3 of 4

ITA No.702/Chny/2026 (2017-18) Sithuraj Ashok आदेश की प्रयतललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रयतयनधि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF

K Digitally signed by K BABU BABU Date: 2026.08.24 14:41:30 +05'30'

Page 4 of 4