MR. PARITHA BALU PROP. ENKAY ENTERPRISE,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, TIRUPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “B” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2919/CHNY/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Paritha Balu Prop: Enkay V DCIT, Enerprise s Circle-1, Tirpur. No.11-A, VE School Road, Kongu Nagar Extn, Tirpur – 641607. PAN: AIOPP7512Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. M.K.Rangaswamy – CA Revenue by Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam – Addl.CIT Date of hearing 03/03/2026 Date of pronouncement 28/04/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi dated 25.11.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16.

“1 The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to facts, law, and principles of natural justice. 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 30,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 solely based on a third-party statement, without any enquiry or independent corroborative evidence linking the alleged cash payment to the appellant. 3 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) were expanded beyond the scope of CASS selection, based on an alleged statement of a third party, which was Suo moto relied upon unilaterally and hence the addition suffers from jurisdictional error and procedural irregularity 4 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the sworn statement of one Shri. Jude Innocent Philip without placing the material before the Appellant and thus not affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the said person, thereby violating the settled principle of natural justice as upheld in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [(2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)]. 5 The learned CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the statement of the appellant's husband recorded during survey u/s 1334, when such a statement Was made under influence and coercion as is apparent from the answer recorded in the said statement of the husband and without the appellant's knowledge or presence. Which was immediately retracted during assessment proceedings, upon being informed as was not supported by any documentary evidence 6 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per the CBDT Instruction No. F No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003, no addition should be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during survey u/s 133A, unless supported by material evidence, which in the instant case there are no material evidences. 7. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the sworn statement u/s 131(1A) of One Shri Jude Innocent Philip constitutes admissible evidence without examining its authenticity context, or basis, particularly when no corroborative material was found to substantiate the alleged cash payment. 8. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in ignoring the fact that no incriminating material or document was impounded during the survey u/s 133A neither was there any material evidence suggesting payment of any on-money or undisclosed investment by the appellant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT VS Khader Khan & sons (352) ITR 480) 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the sworn statement of the seller was sufficient evidence, disregarding that: (0 The alleged statement of the third party was not confronted to the appellant, (1) No copy of the statement was provided during assessment or in appeal even though appellant had requested for the copy and consequently the appellant's request for cross-examination was also not granted. 10. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the retraction of the appellant's husband's statement, even though it was made during the assessment proceedings upon being informed for which with cogent explanationwas given without delay, as the admission was extracted under influence and coercion merely to "co-operate with the department and not on any material evidence 11 The CIT(A) failed to consider judicial precedents that statements under section 133A do not have evidentiary value and require independent corroboration (refer Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (263 ITR 101 (Ker)], CIT v Dhingra Metal Works [328 ITR 384] (Del)]) and hence the addition of 30,00,000/- u/s 69 is arbitrary, excessive, and Sunsustainable, having been made without any credible material evidence, without proper enquiry, and in violation of due process. 12. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the appellant's written submissions and evidences filed through e-proceeding portal and passed a unilateral order confirming the assessment mechanically The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. Prayer In view of the above grounds and facts, the appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: a) Delete the addition of 30,00,000/- made u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, b) Hold that the assessment and the appellate order suffer from legal infirmity and violation of natural justice; and that in the absence of any material evidence the addition sustained by Ld CIT(A) be deleted.

c) Pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant is an Individual engaged in the business of trading in polyester yarn in the name and style of M/s.Enkay Enterprise. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2015- 16 was filed on 30.09.2016 disclosing income of Rs.49,13,920/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Tirpur (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 21.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act at a total income of Rs.79,13,920/- . While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.30 lakhs on account of the unexplained investment on purchase of immovable property over and above the admitted consideration, based on the statement recorded from seller of the property namely i.e. Jude Innocent Philip during the course of survey proceedings conducted in the said case. When the statement was confronted with the appellant, the appellant’s husband Shri V.Balasubramanyam had confessed that the ‘on money’ consideration of Rs.30 lakhs was paid over and above the amount stated in the sale deed. However, the said statement was retracted during the course of assessment proceedings. Based on this concession made by the husband of the appellant, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.30 lakhs.

Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 28th April, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” ब�च, 4. चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.