CHIDAMBARAM VEERAMANI,ARANTHANGI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

ITA 3882/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 September 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation for the cash deposits before the lower authorities. However, the assessee submitted before the Tribunal that the books of accounts were corrupted, preventing the production of evidence earlier, and that the books have now been reconstructed, allowing substantiation of the sources of cash deposits. The assessee requested admission of additional evidence. The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons provided for the non-production of evidence before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, considering the additional evidence filed. All contentions raised by the assessee were left open to be decided by the Assessing Officer. The issue regarding the invocation of Section 115BBE was not expressly decided but would be considered during the de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual engaged in money lending, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee had not filed a regular return of income. Based on information regarding cash deposits aggregating to Rs.82,75,825/- in a bank account, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a return disclosing an income of Rs.4,98,770/-. The AO completed the assessment at a total income of Rs.87,89,595/-, adding Rs.82,90,528/- as unexplained money, rejecting the assessee's explanation that the deposits were from loan repayments due to lack of supporting details. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.82,90,825/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the appellant had explained the source of cash deposits? (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case? (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order was without jurisdiction and contrary to law, facts, equity, natural justice, and fair play. - The order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144B was without jurisdiction. - The appellant had explained the sources for cash deposits made into bank accounts, which were from business. - Section 69A and Section 115BBE cannot be invoked merely because cash was deposited into the bank account, as the bank statement does not constitute the appellant's books. - The notice under Section 148A(b) and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued without complying with statutory requirements and were bad in law and without jurisdiction. Similarly, the notice under Section 148 was bad in law and without jurisdiction. - The additions were made out of conjectures, surmises, and suspicions. - The appellant could not submit evidence before the lower authorities because the books of accounts were corrupted, but now the books have been reconstructed, and additional evidence (cash book) is available. Reliance was placed on CIT Vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd [2013] 351 ITR 57 (Del) for admitting additional evidence. - The appellant objects to the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. Revenue's Contentions: - The Learned Sr.DR had no serious objection for the admission of additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 139,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] dated 09.10.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 1 CHIDAMBARAM VEERAMANI

2.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. For that, the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without juri iction, is contrary to the case's law, facts, and circumstances, and in any case, is op

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →