THOKALA PRAVEEN KUMAR,- vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 1566/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 September 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal, finding the reason provided by the assessee (care of his ailing father) to be a plausible and sufficient cause. Regarding the addition of Rs. 77,54,950/- as unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any books of accounts, documentary evidence relating to loans given or repaid, or confirmation letters from borrowers to substantiate his claim of being in the money lending business. Furthermore, the assessee did not possess a license to conduct such business. The assessee also failed to provide any relevant documents or evidence before the CIT(A)/NFAC or the Tribunal. In the absence of any material on record to support the assessee's claim and to warrant interference with the orders of the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC, the grounds of appeal were dismissed. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Thokala Praveen Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 31.07.2024. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 77,54,950/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these deposits as unexplained cash under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and made an addition to the total income. The assessee contended that he was engaged in a money lending business and the deposits represented collections from small farmer debtors. However, the AO found that the assessee failed to provide any books of accounts, documentary evidence, confirmation letters from borrowers, or a license to conduct money lending business. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-submission of evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given a delay of 288 days in filing. - Assessee: Argued that the delay was due to the ill health of his father, who required continuous care and treatment, constituting a sufficient cause for condonation. - Revenue: No specific argument recorded regarding the delay. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 77,54,950/- towards unexplained cash deposits is justified under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessee: Contended that the deposits represented collections from debtors in his money lending business, and he had filed ITR-4S for AY 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 2,19,740/- with gross receipts of Rs. 4,48,447/- under Section 44AD. - Revenue: Argued that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim regarding the cash deposits representing collections from debtors and the money lending business, as no books of accounts, documentary evidence, or borrower confirmations were provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 250,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 31.07.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067202092(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi is not correct in law.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 77,54,950/- towards unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →