VAIRAVAN KAMARAJA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-(8)1, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2015-16 Shri Vairavan Kamaraja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No. 36, First Main Road, Income Tax, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AHAPK2551R] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V. Veeraraghavan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai dated 17.06.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.

2. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee is an individual, engaged in profession as medical practitioner specializing in the field of Anaesthesiology. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income by admitting income of ₹.20,19,180/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS under the category of “limited”. After following due procedure, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 31.12.2017. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted an amount of ₹.92,42,000/- as a cash credited in the books of the assessee. The assessee was asked to give details about large cash deposit in savings bank account. The assessee’s AR had offered an explanation stating that the amount had been withdrawn and redeposited, but failed to provide any necessary evidence supporting the assessee’s claim. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 50% of the same and treated as income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit being chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources as per section 68 of the Act and the sum of ₹.467,21,000/- so credited was charged to tax.

3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated same submissions without filing any details in respect of cash deposited and withdrawals. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing various details in the form of paper book, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the amount of ₹.92,42,000/- as a cash credited in the books of the assessee, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish details. The AR of the assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer that the amount had been withdrawn and redeposited, but failed to provide any necessary evidence supporting the assessee’s claim. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of the same under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Before the ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee could not file any details and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. However, before the Tribunal, by way of paper book, the assessee has furnished the following details: 1. Summary of statement explaining the cash deposits of assessee (Dr. V.

Kamaraja) from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 – pages 01-36.

7. Copy of annual report and auditor’s report of Everest Green Aggro Farms India Private Limited where assessee is the director – pages 105-194.

Order pronounced on 28th October, 2022 at Chennai.