SUBRAMANI SIVAKUMAR,UTHANGARAI vs. ITO WARD 1, KRISHNAGIRI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 24.11.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

ITA No.433/Chny/2026 Subramani Sivakumar :- 2 -:

assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.94,54,847/- into the bank account and the income admitted by the assessee is not commensurate to the transactions undertaken by the assessee. Therefore, the A.O had a reason to believe that the income as escaped assessment and accordingly reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee submitted before the A.O that he is earning only commission income from the mobile recharge business though the turnover reflected is Rs. 716.68 Lakhs. The assessee further submitted that he is having income from firms and interest income. The A.O held that the assessee has not produced the contractor agreement made with Vodafone cellular Ltd. and hence the claim with regard to commission income cannot be accepted. The A.O based on the information available from the website estimated the commission income of the assessee @ 4% of the total turnover i.e., the total amount credited in the bank account for the FY 2016-17. The A.O accordingly computed the income at Rs. 30,07,732/- and after giving credit to the income declared by the assessee at Rs.13,74,910/-, an addition to the tune of Rs. 16,32,822/- was made. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by excluding certain credits in the bank account whereby the addition was reduced to Rs. 14,91,827/-.

ITA No.433/Chny/2026 Subramani Sivakumar :- 3 -:

income is that the assessee could not produce the agreement entered into with Vodafone Cellular Ltd. We notice from the perusal of the assessment order that the A.O has considered entire credits from the bank statement as the turnover of the assessee and has estimated the income @ 4%. We further notice that the A.O has not brought anything on record in support of the estimation of income such as the earlier income earned by the assessee or the normal commission income earned in this line of business. We also see merit in the contention that the estimation of gross profit should further be reduced to the extent of the indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that estimating the income by applying 1% of the turnover as considered by the CIT(A) would be fair and reasonable. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR fairly brought to our attention that the A.O while adjusting the income declared against the estimated profits has given credit for the income from partnership firm to the tune of Rs. 11,29,179/- which is not correct. Accordingly, we direct the A.O to give credit only to the extent of income declared at Rs. 2,29,992/- from mobile recharge business while estimating the profit by applying 1% of the turnover as confirmed by the CIT(A).

Order pronounced on 10th day of July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 10th July, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.07.15 NARESH 11:24:22 +05'30'

ITA No.433/Chny/2026 Subramani Sivakumar :- 4 -:

आदेश क� �ितिल�प 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