B. VIGNESHKUMAR,SIVAKASI vs. ITO, WARD-3,, VIRUDHUNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission of being a first-time taxpayer unaware of proceedings, granted an opportunity for proper representation. The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited substantial cash into his bank account for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals ex-parte due to non-response.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits into bank accounts can be treated as unexplained income without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain. The assessee's failure to appear before lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders 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 13.10.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 and dated 30.09.2025 for AY 2018-19. The common issue contended by the assessee in both the appeals is with regard to the addition made towards cash deposit into the bank account treated as unexplained.
ITA Nos.3626 & 3864/Chny/2025 B.Vigneshkumar :- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 19.04.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,21,540/-. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2018-19 on 14.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,38,240/-. The A.O noticed that for both AYs, the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash into his bank account and therefore, reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act after passing order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. The assessee did not respond property to the notices issued by the A.O and therefore, the cash deposited into the bank account to the tune of Rs.81,79,730/- for AY 2017-18 and to the tune of Rs.82,33,582/- for AY 2018-19 were treated as unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) for both the AYs. The assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) also for both the AYs and accordingly the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the additions made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) for both the AYs.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee has entered into the business of commission agent for fire crackers immediately upon finishing his studies and was guided by his uncle. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a first time tax payer is not aware of the income tax proceedings and therefore did not represent the case property before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeals back to the A.O with a
ITA Nos.3626 & 3864/Chny/2025 B.Vigneshkumar :- 3 -:
direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12th day of June, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग"र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 12th June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S 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
Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.06.16 12:31:06 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026