ELUMALAI SRINIVASSE,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-3,, PUDUCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2936/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 October 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed to be an agriculturist and not engaged in any business other than agriculture, but noted that no evidence was provided to substantiate these claims. Consequently, both the AO and the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-1 passed their orders ex-parte. Recognizing the ITAT as the final fact-finding authority and aiming for a fair assessment, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee a final opportunity to present his case before the AO with relevant evidence. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for reconsideration, with directions to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard as per Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was also instructed to be vigilant and cooperative without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Elumalai Srinivasse, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-1, Lucknow, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The revenue had information about cash deposits totaling Rs. 21.58 Lacs made by the assessee, who was a non-filer. A notice under Section 148 was issued, but the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 10.79 Lacs, representing cash deposited in a specific Axis Bank account, as unexplained. The assessee's appeal to the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-1 was dismissed for non-submission of evidence. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,79,000/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that he is an agriculturist cultivating 10 acres of land at Thenkodipakkam and 6 acres at Hendiankuppam, and also cultivating 12 acres of his father-in-law's land. The cash deposit of Rs. 10,79,000/- was from agricultural income and receipts from customers in the normal course of business. He contended that he is not engaged in any other business and that when the source of deposits is explained as business receipts, they cannot be treated as unexplained. The assessee also sought one more opportunity to furnish further details due to his health and status as a farmer not being a regular assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's position, as reflected in the orders of the lower authorities, was that the cash deposits were unexplained due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 139,Section 148,Section 282

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के., उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2936/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 Elumalai Srinivasse, v. Income Tax Officer, No.18, Middle Street, Sokkanathanpet, Ward-3, Puducherry-605 009. Puducherry. [PAN: BYLPS7179G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual), Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT. Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Addl. / JCIT (A)-1 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld. Addl. / JCIT (A)-1), Lucknow dated 26.08.2025, for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2012-13.

GROUDS OF APPEAL 1. The Order of Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Puducherry /Addl / JCIT (A)-1, Lucknow is contrary to law, facts and circumstances. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 10, 79,000/- under Section 69 of the Act. 3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessee is an agriculturist and cultivating 10 acres of land at Thenkodipakkam Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District and 6 acres of land at Hendiankuppam Kandamangalam, Villupuruam District. Further the Appellant was also cultivating an area of 12 acres of the agricultural land of Appellant's father-in-law and out of agricultural income, he had deposited cash of Rs. 10,79,000/-.

ITA No.2936/Chny/2025 (2012-13) Elumalai Srinivasse 4. It is submitted that Appellant is not doing any business. He is an agriculturist and in the business of the agricultural products the Appellant had received cash in the normal course of business and deposited cash were receipts from customers in the course of business. 5. The NFAC/ Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that when the source of the deposits has been explained and the Appellant has established it to be received in the course of business, they cannot be treated as unexplained. 6 It is prayed that considering the health of the Appellant and that he is farmer and is not a regular Income Tax Assessee, one more opportunity should have been given to him to furnish further details in consultation with Auditors. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add/amend any further grounds at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal filed by your appellant.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return u/s. 139 of the Act. The revenue was in possession of information about cash deposited by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 21.58 Lacs. In view of this, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 26.03.2019, but the assessee did not respond the same also. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed after making addition of Rs. 10.79 Lacs being amount of cash deposited in bank account no. 209010100174848 with Axis Bank, Puducherry. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)- 1, Lucknow, who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-submission of any evidence in support of his arguments/ explanations. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us.

3.

We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)- 1, Lucknow and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee claimed that he is an agriculturist, cultivating the lands and producing paddy, groundnut, ragi and other cash crops and not doing any business other than agriculture. But in support of his arguments/ explanations, he never came forward with any evidence to substantiate the same. In absence of any evidence filed by the assessee, both the authorities below passed the respective orders in an ex-parte manner.

ITA No.2936/Chny/2025 (2012-13) Elumalai Srinivasse 4. The tribunal being final fact-finding authority, our endeavour is all always to deal with substantive orders for sake of fair and reasonable assessment of tax liability. In view of this, we deem it fit to give a final opportunity to the assessee, where he can represent his case before the AO again with relevant evidence to substantiate his arguments (otherwise filed before us). The matter is restored back to the file of the AO for reconsideration based on the evidence adduced by the assessee after giving a proper opportunity of being heard as per the provisions of section 282 of the Act. The assessee is also to be vigilant and cooperative enough this time while appearing before the AO, without seeking any adjournment. Resultantly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced on the 13th day of October, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजा जॉजा के.) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 13th October, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रतततनधि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF Digitally signed K BABU by K BABU Date: 2026.10.16 09:12:39 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →