PANDIYAN ADIYAPATHAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 913/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 September 2026AY 2022-20234 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanations for both additions, Rs. 50,00,000/- (gifts and savings) and Rs. 4,00,020/- (immovable property payments), were not accepted by the lower authorities primarily due to a lack of proper supporting evidence. The assessee, through their representative, specifically undertook to furnish relevant confirmations and documentary evidence to substantiate the gifts, the donors' source and creditworthiness, and other amounts in question. In the interest of substantial justice and to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored both issues to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence, and the learned CIT(A) is to decide the issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pandiyan Adiyapatham, filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2022-23. The appeal challenges additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- pertains to cash deposited in the assessee's bank account, which was mainly explained as gifts from parents and family, along with past savings. A further addition of Rs. 4,00,020/- relates to payments made for immovable property, which the assessee claimed were duly explained. The lower authorities sustained these additions due to a lack of supporting documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act, representing cash deposits explained as gifts from parents and family and past savings, is valid without sufficient documentary evidence. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,00,020/- under Section 69A of the Act, relating to payments for immovable property, is valid without sufficient documentary evidence. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the additions were primarily sustained due to a lack of supporting evidence. The assessee undertook to furnish necessary evidence, including confirmations from donors, evidence regarding their source and availability of cash for gifts, and documentation for payments related to immovable property, before the learned CIT(A) and requested the matter be restored for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's representative (Ld. DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities but did not seriously object to the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's request to furnish supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter, the Ld. CIT(A)) passed u/s 250 of the 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 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →