RAVI,TUTICORIN vs. ITO WARD -2, TUTICORIN, TUTICORIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 276/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that certain transactions, including NEFT payments and online transactions, were not considered by the CIT(A) and should not be treated as the assessee's income. Therefore, a portion of the addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income. The AO added a significant amount as unexplained cash deposits based on bank information. The CIT(A) confirmed a part of the addition after considering some of the assessee's submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered all the transactions presented by the assessee, particularly those related to NEFT and online payments, when confirming the addition of unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 30.04.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.276/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ravi 246/1, Keela Eral Post, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin-628908. Tuticorin-628001. [PAN: AUNPR3190D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Darshan Bothra, C.A. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 30.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2026 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 19.11.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, we find that the assessee is an individual; no return of income was filed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). According to the AO, as per information, the assessee made a cash deposit of ₹75,96,422/- in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. In

2 I.T.A. No.276/Chny/26

order to verify the same, the AO issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed a reply, which is reproduced on page Nos. 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Further, the AO proposed to make an addition of ₹78,22,793/- vide show-cause notice, and the assessee filed his response to the said show-cause notice, which is reproduced on page Nos. 5 and 6 of the assessment order. The AO found the explanation of the assessee not acceptable, and in the absence of any documentary evidence, he added an amount of ₹78,22,793/- under Section 69A of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹80,54,993/- as against the returned income of ₹2,32,200/-, vide order dated 08.02.2024 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), considering the submissions of the assessee, which are reproduced from para Nos. 5 to 20 of the paper book, confirmed the addition of ₹26,64,941/- (₹78,22,793 - ₹51,57,852). Not being satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us.

3.

The ld. AR, Shri Darshan Bothra, C.A., submits that the ld. CIT(A), without considering the various items i.e. NEFT payments etc., proceeded to pass the impugned order, which are as under:-

3 I.T.A. No.276/Chny/26

DEPOSITS DATES ₹4,045/- 14.05.2015 ₹10,000/- 18.09.2015 ₹1,950/- 06.10.2015 ₹159/- 09.10.2015 ₹1,80,000/- 21.01.2016 ₹7,00,000/- 28.01.2016 ₹1,50,000/- 03.03.2016 TOTAL: ₹10,46,154/-

4.

He submits that the said entries, being relatable to NEFT transactions, online payments, cash withdrawals, etc., were not at all considered by the ld. CIT(A), and thus prayed that the same be duly taken into consideration and appropriate relief be granted.

5.

The ld. DR, Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT, submits that the said account was before the ld. CIT(A) and relief was given considering the entries as reflected in the said account statement. The assessee is not entitled to seek any further relief by showing any FD, withdrawals, and online payments again before the ITAT. The assessee did not bring on record

4 I.T.A. No.276/Chny/26

evidence supporting the contentions raised by the ld. AR and prayed to reject the submissions of the ld. AR.

6.

Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly there was no evidence showing the statement of the ld. AR before us relating to reversal of ATM withdrawals, online payments, NEFT transactions, etc. Admittedly, the assessee has got substantial relief from the ld. CIT(A), which is evident from page No. 21 of the impugned order, wherein he clearly held the sum to an extent of ₹51,57,852/-, which is directly attributable to M/s Raja Traders on the basis of the bank statement, and the said entries represent trade advances/receipts from the principal and held that the same cannot be treated as the assessee’s income. We find there is no dispute with regard to the finding of the ld. CIT(A) from the ld. DR. We find that the said finding clearly shows non-inclusion of transactions relating to NEFT, reversal of ATM withdrawals, and online payments; therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR, and as no consideration was given to other transactions by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, considering the entries pointed out by the ld. AR, we hold that the transactions referred to hereinabove are not the income of the assessee and are required to be deleted. Thus, the addition of

5 I.T.A. No.276/Chny/26

₹16,18,787/- (₹26,64,941/- – ₹10,46,154/-) is confirmed. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed in part.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 13.05.2026 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 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →