KETTIMUTHUGOUNDER,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1). CHENNAI, ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2149/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 November 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of the cash deposit. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to cooperate during the verification process.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order upholding the Assessing Officer's (AO) treatment of a cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- as unexplained. The assessee's counsel provided a bank statement showing no such deposit for the relevant financial year.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the AO's decision to treat a cash deposit as unexplained without proper verification of the bank statement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 10.11.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ‘the CIT(A), NFAC / Delhi dated 23.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2012-13.

2.

The short grievance of the assessee is that whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee whereby he

- 2 - ITA. No:2149/Chny/2025 upheld the order of the AO treating the cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- as unexplained? 3. The AO in para 1 of its order noted as under: 1. From the information available on record, it was seen that the assessee, during the Financial Year 2011-12, relevant to the Assessment year 2012- 13 had made cash deposits of Rs.60,25,000/- (In aggregate on various dates) into his Savings Bank account with M/s. EDCC Bank.”

4.

At, the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed statement of the Account of the assessee for period 23.04.2011 to 26.03.2012, lying with EDCC Bank [A/c. No.10825010002125]. The ld. counsel pleaded that there is no such purported cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- in the EDCC Bank account for FY 2011-12.

5.

Per contra, the ld.DR vehemently relied upon the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A). However, she pleaded that the aforesaid cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- in the EDCC Bank account for FY 2011-12 may be verified by the AO from the statement of the Account of the assessee for period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record and statement of the Account of the assessee for period 23.04.2011 to 26.03.2012. We find strength in the argument of the assessee therefore we set aside the impugned order and restored back to the file of the AO only for the verification of the purported cash deposit of Rs.60,25,000/- in the EDCC Bank account of the assessee for FY 2011-12. From the assessment order, we find that reason for opening the assessment was based upon the para 1 of the assessment order as recorded by the AO. Needless to say, AO will

- 3 - ITA. No:2149/Chny/2025 provide proper opportunity to the assessee while doing verification. The assessee is also directed to co-operate the AO during verification.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms above.

Order pronounced in open Court on the 10th day of November 2025, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →