THANGAVEL SRIDHAR,TIRUCHENGODE vs. ITO , WARD-1,, TIRUCHENGODE

ITA 2728/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 October 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to avail opportunities provided by both the AO and the CIT(A), deeming the explanation of not monitoring the portal and email as not fully absolving the assessee of his statutory obligations. However, considering that the additions involved factual verification of the source and nature of cash deposits, which requires examination of bank statements, books of account, and other supporting documents, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate his case. The Tribunal found that the interest of substantial justice would be met by remitting the entire matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documentary evidence and cooperate with the AO. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for negligent conduct. The AO was directed to examine the evidence and pass a fresh speaking assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Thangavel Sridhar, filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2016-17 admitting a total income of Rs. 2,99,420/-. The Assessing Officer (AO), NFAC, Delhi, noted substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts during FY 2015-16, totaling Rs. 30,31,700/- in a savings account, Rs. 97,61,687/- in a current account with Canara Bank, Rs. 2,01,36,340/- in HDFC Bank, and Rs. 20,003/- in KVB Bank Ltd. The AO issued notices, but the assessee's reply was incomplete and lacked documentary evidence. Consequently, the AO made additions of Rs. 30,11,503/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and 8% of other deposits (Rs. 1,04,65,370/-) as business income, amounting to Rs. 8,37,230/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], NFAC, Delhi, who confirmed the AO's order after the assessee failed to appear or submit evidence despite three opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) deserves to be sustained, or if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits with documentary evidence? Assessee's Contention: The assessee's authorized representative (AR) argued that the assessee was unaware of the notices issued by the CIT(A) because he did not regularly check the income tax portal and his email. Therefore, he could not submit written submissions or valid evidence. The AR prayed to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, assuring effective representation. Revenue's Contention: The Department's Representative (DR) submitted that both the AO and the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee. However, the assessee was negligent in responding to statutory notices, and therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 06.05.2026, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2016-17 against the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 250 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated 20.02.2026. :-2-: ITA. No:2728/Chny/2

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 →