SELVARAJ VIVEKRAJ,KUMBAKONAM vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ( JAO), INCOME TAX OFFICE

ITA 4152/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 October 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter requires fresh consideration by the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, given the substantial addition and the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition. The assessee is directed to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits and furnish documentary evidence. The CIT(A) is to consider the explanation for non-compliance and pass a fresh speaking order after examining the evidence. The assessee must cooperate and furnish documents. The CIT(A) should decide afresh without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Selvaraj Vivekraj, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2018-19. The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 3,97,62,601/- in his bank account. He did not file his return of income. Reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 139, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. The assessee did not respond to this notice or subsequent notices during assessment. The Assessing Officer proposed to treat the cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A. Without a reply, the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,97,62,601/-. The CIT(A) sustained this addition, finding the assessee's explanations unsupported by documentary evidence and noting non-compliance with further notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,97,62,601/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering the assessee's non-compliance and lack of documentary evidence? (Question of law and fact turning on Section 69A). Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that there were reasons for delayed response and non-filing of the return of income, and placed certain facts before the appellate authority. (No specific authorities cited). Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the ld. DR, argued that the CIT(A) correctly sustained the addition based on the assessee's non-compliance and absence of supporting documentary evidence. (No specific authorities cited).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 16.09.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [“CIT(A)”] dated 31.07.2025, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.3,97,62,601/- in his bank account maintained with City Union Bank Ltd. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 u/s. 139 of the Income Tax A

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 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →