What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO made additions for unexplained cash deposits and the assessee could not substantiate the source of these deposits before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed a reasoned order, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The assessee filed a return of income, but the AO completed the assessment by adding cash deposits in bank accounts due to the failure to explain their source. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits is justified. Whether the assessee's failure to substantiate the source of cash deposits warrants confirmation of the addition.

Subramani Venkata Ramani vs Non Corp Ward 19(6) Chennai, New… | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 04.05.2026Pronounced: 03.06.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A), Kochi (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 31.10.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18.

ITA No.3857/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 20.06.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.3,48,480/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Chennai vide order dated 28.11.2019, passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs. 13,68,480/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposits of Rs.5,35,000/- made in the bank account maintained with City Union Bank, T.Nagar and Rs.4,85,000/- in the bank account maintained with State Bank of Hyderabad, T.Nagar for the failure of the assessee to explain the source of said cash deposits. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation or evidence in support of the source of said cash deposits.

Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, after hearing the Ld.Senior DR, we proceed to dispose of the same.

ITA No.3857/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 4. We have heard Ld.Senior DR and perused the material on record. On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would indicate that the AO had made addition of cash deposits in the bank accounts for the failure of the assessee to explain the source of said cash deposits. Even before the CIT(A), the assessee took a plea that cash deposits are made in the bank account out of the cash balance held on hand as per the books of accounts and also withdrawals from the partnership firm in which the assessee was a partner. However, the assessee could not substantiate the same before the CIT(A). In the circumstances, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) passed reasoned order on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार �ग�र) (इंटूर� रामा राव) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 3rd June, 2026

ITA No.3857/Chny/2025 :- 4 -:

RSR, Sr.PS

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.06.05 15:22:45 +05'30'

SUBRAMANI VENKATA RAMANI,CHENNAI vs. NON CORP WARD 19(6) CHENNAI, NEW BUILDING,CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments