VANGILIGOUNDER PALANISAMY SELVARAJ,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 919/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2026AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered fresh evidence submitted by the assessee and decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was given liberty to file further evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹5,50,000 as unexplained cash credit for lack of substantiating evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, finding the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of cash credit was justified without considering fresh evidence submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 15.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ 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.919/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vangiligounder Palanisamy Selvaraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 133 B, KKP Street, Ward - 1,138/3, Santhaipettaipudur S.O, LMR Shopping Arcade, Namakkal - 637001. 3RD Floor, Salem Road, Tamil Nadu. Namakkal - 637 0001. [PAN: BFXPS9904N] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Dharshan Bothra, C.A. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Ludhiana for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

At the outset, it is not disputed by both the parties that the AO disallowed an amount of ₹5,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit for non-submission of substantiating evidence and supporting documents, which is clear from page No. 4 of the assessment order.

2 I.T.A. No.919/Chny/26

Further, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not submitted any substantiating evidence in support of his claim and failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness relating to the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is clear from para 6.3 of the impugned order.

3.

Ld. AR Mr. Dharshan Bothra, C.A. placed on record the paper book containing 17 pages consisting of copies of notarized affidavits by V. Mani and R. Subramaniam and copies of returns of income of R. Subramaniam (HUF) for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. Further, copies of notarized affidavits by K. Sekar along with a copy of Form 26AS from page No. 10 to 16 of the paper book. Further, a copy of the bank statement of the assessee maintained by HDFC Bank for the period from 01.04.2018 to 10.01.2019 at page No. 17 of the paper book. We find that there is no dispute for non- submission of above-said documentary material before both the authorities below.

4.

Therefore, considering the same as fresh evidence, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the AO for its fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support

3 I.T.A. No.919/Chny/26

of his claim. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

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

Order pronounced on 15th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 15.06.2026 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.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →