RAMU MANOHARAN,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के., उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1463/Chny/2026 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Ramu Manoharan, v. Income Tax Officer, No.2/1, Kannappa Layout Villupuram, Ward-1, Tamil Nadu-605 602. Villupuram. [PAN: AMSPM0351N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms. Nidhi Jain, C.A, Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. Biplab Gangopadhyay, JCIT, Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 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 14.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2015-16.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The order passed by the Learned CIT (A), is opposed to law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is therefore unsustainable. 2. Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that Appellant is into the business of electric spare parts under the name and style of M/s. Sakthi Murugan Enterprises. 3. Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in not considering the fact that actual turnover is INR 67, 78,377. Transactions done in the bank accounts relates to spare parts business only. Since case relates 10 years back and appellant did not remember much details, appellant filed first reply stating that appellant holds only one Bank Account and have declared the turnover as per VAT Returns from the data available.

ITA No.1463/Chny/2026 (2015-16) Ramu Manoharan 4. Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that appellant vide letter dated 14.12.2023 and 11.03.2024, had requested Learned Assessing Officer to consider the revised computation of total income and taxes paid on the same. 8% on INR 67, 47,145 being INR 5, 39,772 was offered as income of the appellant from business. 5. Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that this mistake of reporting lesser turnover in return filed u/s.148 happened only due to passage of time and there was no intention behind concealing any facts or data as appellant have not maintained any books of account for business. Appellant is a 10th class student and doesn't have knowledge about the laws of the country and especially accounting knowledge and income tax laws. This was inadvertent mistake which appellant accepts and requested Learned Assessing officer to not treat the credits in the Bank Accounts as unexplained, just because the bank accounts have been not disclosed earlier. 6. Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the current account in the debit side most of the payments were made only to suppliers and it clearly envisages that this relates to business transactions only. 7. Appellant prays deletion of entire addition of INR 27, 46,499 as unexplained money u/s. 69A 8. Appellant seeks adequate opportunity to present the facts of the case and case may be heard based on merits of the case 9. The Appellant seeks your leave to add, alter, amend or delete any grounds urged, at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case ate that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return for the year under consideration, the Revenue was in possession of certain information about the assessee relating to cash deposit of Rs. 50.34 Lacs and other deposits to the tune of Rs. 23.50 Lacs In bank accounts maintained by him. In view of this a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 04.04.2022. In response to the same the assessee furnished his return u/s. 148 of the Act vide dated: 07.05.2022 declaring income at Rs. 2, 22,270/-. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs. 1, 00,280/- under the head business and Rs. 27, 46,999/- u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. But the assessee being dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal, preferred the present appeal before us.

ITA No.1463/Chny/2026 (2015-16) Ramu Manoharan amount of Rs. 40, 00, 656/- has already been considered @ 8% as income u/s. 44AD of the Act. The balance amount of Rs. 27, 46, 499/- is considered u/s. 69A of the Act by the department whereas the assessee wants to apply section 44AD of the Act on the same also. We have thoroughly examined the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and the AO along with submissions of the assessee but it is observed that the explanations of the assessee are not convincing and further are contradictory in nature, hence to be fair and reasonable with both the sides we deem fit to restore the matter back to the file of the AO with the direction to be considered the case of the assessee in the light of plausible explanations and evidences adduced by the assessee w.r.t. the amount under consideration amounting to Rs. 27, 46, 499/- after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per section 282 of the Act and the assessee is also directed to be vigilant and cooperative enough in the proceedings before the AO without seeking any adjournment. In view of the above grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions. Order pronounced on the 29th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज के.) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपधध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 29th July, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रतततनधि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF

ITA No.1463/Chny/2026 (2015-16) Ramu Manoharan