THEIVASIGAMANI JOTHIMURUGAN,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VIRUDHUNAGAR

ITA 2959/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 September 2026AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence in the form of gift deeds for the Rs. 2,60,000/- addition, considering its nature and relevance in the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the Rs. 6,00,000/- loan was repaid and would furnish confirmations from lenders. Since the additional evidence required verification and examination by the FAA, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues, including the legal issue raised regarding the validity of reopening, to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA was directed to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal held that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Theivasigamani Jothimurugan, filed an appeal against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow, dated 13.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank account. During reassessment, the AO made additions of Rs. 6,00,000/- under section 68 for unexplained unsecured loans and Rs. 2,60,000/- for gifts received from the assessee's father and spouse. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) confirmed these additions. The assessee is aggrieved by the FAA's order and has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards unsecured loans is sustainable under section 68 of the Act, considering the assessee's contention that it represents an opening balance, the lenders accepted giving the loan via sworn statements, and the loan was not obtained during the relevant previous year. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,60,000/- on account of gifts received from the assessee's father and spouse is sustainable under section 68 of the Act. 3. Whether the reopening of assessment is valid when the reason for reopening ceased to survive, as no addition was made in respect of that specific reason. Assessee's Arguments: - The unsecured loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- was an opening balance and not obtained during the previous year. The lenders confirmed giving the loan via sworn statements. The addition was based on conjectures. - The assessee sought admission of additional evidence (gift deeds) for the Rs. 2,60,000/- addition, stating the funds were borrowed for business expansion. - The reopening was invalid as the original reason for reopening became non-existent. Revenue's Arguments: The Ld. DR supported the orders of the AO and the FAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 28.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow dated 13.03.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12. Theivasigamani Jothimurugan

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee filed the return of inco

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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →