R639 L NEIKUPPAI PACCS,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2987/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 July 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO's addition of entire cash deposits without proper explanation was not justified. Since the assessee also failed to comply before the CIT(A), the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2019-20 were filed with significant delays, which were condoned. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on unexplained cash deposits, and the CIT(A) confirmed these additions ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits by the AO was justified and whether the ex parte confirmation by the CIT(A) warranted a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 139,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2986 & 2987/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2019-20. R639 L Neikuppai Primary Vs. The ITO, Agricultural Co-operative Credit Ward -2(1), Society, Trichy. 1/101 North Street, Neikuppai, Trichy-Tamil Nadu, 621111. [PAN: AABAR3105K]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Arvind. P.K., CA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2019-20, respectively.

2.

Since the issues raised in both these appeals are similar and based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2 I.T.A. No. 2986 & 2987/Chny/2026

-:I.T.A. No.2986/Chny/2026:- (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 141 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 141 days is condoned.

4.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO determined the income of the assessee at ₹6,17,33,901, inter alia, making addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") by holding that the assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of the cash deposits. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the view of the AO ex parte of the assessee, which is evident from para Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order.

5.

Ld. AR, Mr. Arvind P.K., C.A., submits that one more opportunity may be afforded.

6.

Ld. DR, Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT, vehemently opposed the same on the ground that no valid reasons were offered for non-appearance before the AO and the ld. CIT(A) and opposed remand of the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

7.

Having heard both the parties, we note that, admittedly, no return of income was filed by the assessee either under section 139 or in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO added the entire cash deposits to the total income of the assessee. In our opinion, the same is

3 I.T.A. No. 2986 & 2987/Chny/2026

not justified. Further, no compliance was made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), which is evident from the findings in the impugned order, which clearly demonstrate that no assistance whatsoever was rendered by the assessee. Considering the same, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his case. The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the explanation of the assessee and pass the order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

-:I.T.A. No.2987/Chny/2026:- (Assessment Year: 2019-20) 9. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 145 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 145 days is condoned.

10.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO determined the income of the assessee at ₹10,14,95,892, inter alia, making addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") by holding that the assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of the cash

4 I.T.A. No. 2986 & 2987/Chny/2026

deposits. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the view of the AO ex parte of the assessee, which is evident from para Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order.

11.

Ld. AR, Mr. Arvind P.K., C.A., submits that one more opportunity may be afforded.

12.

Ld. DR, Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT, vehemently opposed the same on the ground that no valid reasons were offered for non-appearance before the AO and the ld. CIT(A) and opposed remand of the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

13.

Having heard both the parties, we note that, admittedly, no return of income was filed by the assessee either under section 139 or in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO added the entire cash deposits to the total income of the assessee. In our opinion, the same is not justified. Further, no compliance was made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), which is evident from the findings in the impugned order, which clearly demonstrate that no assistance whatsoever was rendered by the assessee. Considering the same, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his case. The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the explanation of the assessee and pass the order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

14.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5 I.T.A. No. 2986 & 2987/Chny/2026

Order pronounced on 29th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.07.2026 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.

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.07.30 11:59:37 +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 →