PARTHEEBAN VIGNESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXATION WARD,, CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,‘ ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
श्रीएम.बालगणेश, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्षएवं. श्रीएसएसववश्वनेत्ररवव, न्याययकसदस्य
BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.:2265/Chny/2025
यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20
PartheebanVignesh
Old No.6, New No.4,
Balaji Nagar, 1st Cross Street,
Ekkatuthangal,
Chennai-600 097. [PAN:ANKPV3468N]
vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Intl. Taxation Ward-2(2),
Chennai.
(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)
(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant by : Smt.Lekah, C.A प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue by : Mr.C.P.Soloman, JCIT
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2025
घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 24.10.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER M. BALAGANESH, AM :
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-16, (in short Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2019-20, vide order dated 18.06.2025. ITA. No:2265/Chny/2025
Page 2 of 3
0 Though the Assessee has raised several grounds before us, the only effective issue on merits to be decided is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs. 96 lakhs on account of unexplained investment for purchase of immovable property in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee is a non-resident individual. Since he had no taxable income in India, he did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2019-20. The Assessee, however, had purchased an immovable property during the year under consideration for a sum of Rs. 96 lakhs, which information got flagged from the office of the sub-