RANJITH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), , CHENNAI

Year: 2017-18 Ranjith Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 418A, Flat No. 1 & 2, 1st Floor, 2nd Link Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Road, Sadasivam Nagar North, Chennai. Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [PAN: ADNPR0643L] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

4. At the outset, it is noted that the assessee is an individual and no return of income filed. The Assessing Officer found cash deposits in current account and by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, concluded the assessment by holding that there was no compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices and estimated Rs. 16,81,564/- at 3% of total credits in the current account treating the same as unexplained cash credit on account of unexplained/unaccounted income under section 69A of the Act, which is clear from para 5 of the impugned order. It is noted that the assessee filed written submissions before the first appellate authority, which is reproduced at pages 3 to 7 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, it is noted that the assessee requested the ld. CIT(A) to determine the net profit based on the commission earned minus indirect expenses. Further, the assessee contended that the profit as estimated by the Assessing Officer is not fair and reasonable. The ld. CIT(A) found the said contention is not acceptable and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof vide para 5 of the impugned order. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to reduce the profit rate from 3% to 1% as it is very reasonable taking into account the commission earned by the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the submissions as filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and argued that the profit rate adopted by the Assessing Officer is justified and there was no return of income filed by the assessee and no evidence brought on record supporting the contentions raised from pages 3 to 7 of the impugned order. After hearing both the parties and considering the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that there was no basis for determining profit at 3% by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, considering the submissions of the ld. AR and also written submissions as reflected at pages 3 to 7 of the impugned order, we are of the opinion that 1% of total credits in current account, is just and proper and accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.