SAHAYAM DEEBAN RAJESH,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TUTICORIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2945/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which had a direct nexus with the addition sustained under Section 68. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on cash deposits. An addition of Rs. 15,55,000/- was made under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 13,50,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence should be admitted and if the addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits requires fresh examination by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 12.05.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.08.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14.

- 2 - ITA 2945/CHNY/2025 Sahayam Deeban Rajesh 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual engaged in the export business of beedi leaves/tobacco in the name and style of M/s. Kala Traders & Exports. For the assessment year 2017-18, assessee filed his return of income on 27.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,90,125/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the reason of ‘Large Commission expenses and low net profit’. The assessment was completed by making addition of Rs.8,92,753/-. Subsequently, based on information available in the I.T.M.R. regarding cash deposits of Rs.27,27,000/- in the assessee’s OD account maintained with State Bank of Travancore, Tuticorin Branch, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 18.03.2020. The assessment was ultimately completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 22.09.2021 assessing total income at Rs.29,37,880/- and making addition of Rs.15,55,000/- u/s.68 of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits.

3.

Aggrieved by the reassessment completed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). After considering the submissions and material placed on record, the FAA partly allowed the appeal of the

- 3 - ITA 2945/CHNY/2025 Sahayam Deeban Rajesh assessee by deleting part of the addition and sustaining addition of Rs.13,50,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidence, since the relevant documents could not be furnished before the lower authorities due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It was submitted that out of the addition sustained by the FAA u/s.68 of the Act, a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- represented amount received from late Shri Janarthanan and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- represented advance received from Shri Suburayan Trade Creditors. The Ld.AR submitted that Shri Janarthanan had passed away during the year 2020 and thereafter his business affairs were managed by his wife. Therefore, the assessee could not obtain the relevant financial statements, ledger accounts and supporting documents during the course of assessment proceedings as well as first appellate proceedings. However, subsequently the assessee was able to secure copies of financial statements for A.Ys.2012-13 and 2013-14, ledger account and proof relating to sale of cars by late Shri Janarthanan to substantiate the source for

- 4 - ITA 2945/CHNY/2025 Sahayam Deeban Rajesh payment made to the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that confirmation from Shri Suburayan in respect of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- could also not be obtained earlier and the same has now been secured. It was contended that the additional evidences sought to be filed have direct bearing on adjudication of the issue relating to addition made u/s.68 of the Act and therefore, in the interest of justice, the same may be admitted and the issue may be restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration.

5.

The Ld.DR strongly relied on the order of the FAA.

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidence in the form of financial statements, ledger account, proof relating to sale of cars by late Shri Janarthanan and confirmation from Shri Suburayan. The explanation offered by the assessee for non-filing of the said documents before the lower authorities is that Shri Janarthanan had expired during the year 2020 and thereafter the assessee could not obtain the relevant documents from his wife during the course of assessment proceedings and first appellate proceedings. Subsequently, the assessee was able to obtain the

- 5 - ITA 2945/CHNY/2025 Sahayam Deeban Rajesh relevant documents and therefore filed the same before the Tribunal as additional evidence. On perusal of the additional evidence sought to be filed, we find that the same has direct nexus with adjudication of the issue relating to addition sustained u/s.68 of the Act. Therefore, for substantial justice and equity, the additional evidences that are filed before the Tribunal are taken on record. Since the additional evidences are taken on record, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue relating to addition sustained u/s.68 of the Act to the file of the AO for fresh examination of the evidences and for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th May,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 12th May, 2026

- 6 - ITA 2945/CHNY/2025 Sahayam Deeban Rajesh

RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Madurai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.05.15 11:55:15 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →