Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C BENCH: CHENNAΙ
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI HONBLE JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH: Captioned three appeals filed by the Revenue are against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–18, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The impugned orders arise from the reassessment orders framed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’ in short) under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act dated 12.12.2019 for the to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 2 -:
Assessment Years (‘AYs’ in short) 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The year wise particulars of the respective appeals challenged by the Revenue are under.
Order of Order of Nature of Amount in Rs. CIT(A) AO Additions 1900/CHNY/2025 2013-14 11.03.2025 12.12.2019 Unexplained 16,34,49,074 Income Unexplained 5,30,55,000 Investments 1901/CHNY/2025 2014-15 11.03.2025 12.12.2019 Unexplained 20,58,960 Income Unexplained 4,38,00,000 Investments 1902/CHNY/2025 2015-16 11.03.2025 12.12.2019 Unexplained 51,90,465 Income Unexplained 2,30,66,000 Investments
The registry has noted delay of 2 days in filing these appeals.
Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the revenue, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the all three appeals for adjudication. to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 3 -: 3. Since the issues involved in all three appeals are common in facts and law, they are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, consistency, and judicial propriety.
Further, as the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are substantially similar in all the assessment years under consideration, the grounds pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14 are reproduced below for reference and adjudication.
Grounds of Appeal for AY 2013-14: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.16,34,49 074/- and Rs.5,30,55,000 made u/s 69 of the Act merely based on submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings
3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the assessing officer uls 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.16,34,49,074/- and Rs.5,30,55,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Act, as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to dislodge or counter the basis of the addition.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.16,34,49,074/- and Rs.5,30,55,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Act as the Ld.CIT(A) passed a non speaking order rendering it unsustainable in law.
For these and other grounds that may he adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the LD.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored”
to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 4 -: 5. Before we advert to the grounds taken in the appeals, it would be appropriate to cull out, the basic facts of the case, as brought out by the Ld.CIT (A) in the impugned order passed. The assessee is an individual and is deriving income by way of pension as an MLA, and income from other sources. A survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted on 30.01.2018 in the business premises of M/s GSNR Rice Industries Private Limited and M/s Sri Narayan Reddiar Modern Rice Mill in which the assessee's brother Shri K.N.Mannivannan is the Managing Director and proprietor, respectively.
During the course of survey proceedings, several materials were found and impounded. These include
(i) Diary (impounded as "Ann.SNR/PVD/B&D/Diary-S.no.2") (ii) Note book (impounded as "Ann. SNR/PVD/B&D/Diary- S.No.6"); (iii) Loose sheets (impounded as Ann. SNR/PVD/B&D/LS-1-44845"); and (iv) Computer CPU, laptop, pen drives etc.
Revenue analysed these materials and the retrieved data from CPU was compared with the income disclosed by the assessee and found that some transactions (found in the retrieved "tally' software) were not disclosed. The documents impounded indicated transactions between the assessee and his brother/brother's concerns involving receipts and payments of cash during various financial years. Observing that the assessee had not declared such income arising out of the transactions with the concerns of the assessee's brother, in the returns of income filed, the to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 5 -: AO made out a case of escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and the assessments for the A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 were reopened and notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued. For all the assessment years the income declared in the original returns was declared as income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Subsequently, referring to the impounded material found during the course of survey, the AO completed the reassessments by making the additions/disallowances as under [Page 2 of CIT(A) order]:
A.Y. Returned Unexplained Income Unexplained Income (Rs.) (Rs.) Investment (Rs.) 2013-14 4,86,000 16,34,49,074 5,30,55,000 2014-15 4,73,430 20,58,960 4,38,00,000 2015-16 6,37,770 51,90,465 2,36,63,000
Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed appeals before the ld.CIT(A), who allowed the appeals on the basis of order taken earlier by the Tribunal in other cases pertaining to this group. The Revenue preferred these appeals against the decision of the ld.CIT(A) for the years under consideration.
The core contention of the assessee is that an amount of Rs.21.35 crores received from M/s True Value Homes (P) ltd [‘TVH(P)’ in short], to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 6 -: through Shri K N Manivannan, the company's Managing Director, which in turn was used for various purposes in the hands of the various persons of the group and claimed that no addition requires to be made in the hands of the various persons of this group. The details of the cashflow statement as brought out by the assessee is under:
GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD & GROUP PARTICULARS AMOUNT in Rs.
Income admitted in AY - 2011-12 in GSNR 1,58,45,600 Income admitted in AY - 2012-13 in GSNR 33,40,500 Fund Transfer from TVH (P) Ltd - AY-2011-12 5,00,00,000 Fund Transfer from TVH (P) Ltd - AY-2012-13 4,50,00,000 Fund Transfer from TVH (P) Ltd - AY-2013-14 6,75,00,000 Fund Transfer from TVH (P) Ltd - AY-2014-15 5,10,00,000 23,26,86,100 Total Fund Inflow
Cash Out flow - AY - 2012-13 1,56,84,825 Cash Out flow - AY - 2013-14 2,99,55,277 Cash Out flow - AY - 2014-15 5,23,02,960 Cash Out flow - AY - 2015-16 4,67,61,465 Cash Out flow - AY - 2016-17 6,04,11,912 Total Cash Outflow 20,51,16,439
Net Balance 2,75,69,661 to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 7 -: 8. The assessee has further contended that the cash flow statement referred to above was duly accepted by the first appellate authorities. Based on this finding, the ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeals in the cases of Shri K. N.
Manivannan and M/s GSNR, and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made on the strength of the impounded materials obtained during the course of survey, which are also relied upon in the present case.
The decisions of the ld.CIT(A) in these matters were subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 09.06.2021 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/CHNY/2019 pertaining to M/s GSNR for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16, and in for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in the case of Shri K. N.
Manivannan. Additionally, the Tribunal reaffirmed its position in a separate order dated 29.11.2023 in 286, 287 & 288/CHNY/2023 concerning Shri K. N. Manivannan for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2015-16.
However, the AO relying on the same narrations and impounded materials, once again proceeded to make additions towards unexplained income and investments for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16, in to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 8 -: the case of the Assessee. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A), drawing upon the findings of the Tribunal, deleted the said additions.
We, on examination of the impugned order, note that the ld.CIT(A) has relied upon the findings of the earlier orders of the Tribunal in respect of the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeals.
In view of the above, the core issue for adjudication herein is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal solely on the basis of the decisions rendered by the earlier bench of the Tribunal when the facts and circumstances remain unchanged.
Pertinently, it is on record that in all the orders referred above, the Tribunal consistently held that the entries in the impounded materials were incomplete, contained duplication, and could not be treated as reliable evidence to justify additions under Sections 68 or 69 of the Act. The Tribunal also held that in the absence of corroborative evidence establishing the nexus between such entries and any undisclosed income, the documents were to be treated as “dumb documents,” incapable of supporting any adverse inference against the assessee. to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 9 -: 14. In this context, we must emphasize the principle of judicial discipline, which governs the functioning of all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
Judicial discipline requires that authorities subordinate to a higher forum must adhere to the law laid down by such higher forums on identical issues.
This principle ensures uniformity, consistency, and predictability in the administration of justice. It also prevents unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions on the same subject matter. When a coordinate bench of the Tribunal has already adjudicated upon identical facts involving the same group of assessees and the same evidentiary material, it becomes incumbent upon lower authorities, including the ld.CIT(A) and subsequent benches, to follow those decisions in the absence of any distinguishing facts or contrary judicial precedent.
In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly followed the binding precedents of this Tribunal in the group cases, recognizing that the facts, parties, and issues involved are identical. The approach adopted by the ld.CIT(A) is thus in strict conformity with the doctrine of judicial discipline and cannot be faulted. The Revenue, on the other hand, has failed to demonstrate any departure from the earlier factual matrix or to produce any new material that could justify a different conclusion. The mere repetition of to 1902/Chny/2025 Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru :- 10 -: grounds without addressing the legal and factual basis of the earlier Tribunal decisions does not constitute a valid ground for interference.
We find that the ld.CIT(A)’s order is well-reasoned, based on facts duly verified and supported by judicial precedents. There is no perversity or error of law in the findings recorded by the ld.CIT(A). In light of the settled judicial position and the principle of judicial discipline, we find no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order deleting the additions made under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act.
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 stands dismissed. The orders of the CIT(A) are confirmed.
Order pronounced on 03rd day of December, 2025 at Chennai.