MANOHAR,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-3,, PUDUCHERRY
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given multiple opportunities by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) but failed to provide any compliance or evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the assessee for AY 2017-18 based on a cash deposit in a society bank. The assessee did not file a return or comply with notices. A best judgement assessment was made, adding the amount as unexplained money.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment and additions made by the authorities below are sustainable when the assessee has failed to provide any compliance or explanation despite multiple opportunities, and whether the assessee's reliance on a previous Tribunal order is applicable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Year: 2017-18 Manohar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Ward – 3, Ganapathichettikulam, Puducherry. Puducherry – 605 014. [PAN:AWMPM5480E] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT for Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer, on noticing cash deposit in the society bank belonging to the assessee, reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and in response, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer issued 3 notices under section 142(1) of the Act and 4 notices show-causing the assessee why the cash deposit be added to the total income of the assessee, which is evident from para 2 to 9 of the assessment order, which clearly shows that there was no compliance by the assessee in response to the notices issued under section 142(1), 148 of the Act and show-cause notice during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we note that the Assessing Officer completed the best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act vide order dated 29.03.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. We find the ld. CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee, which is evident from para 4 of the impugned order. According to the ld. CIT(A), there was no response nor compliance in respect of the notices issued by the first appellate authority and accordingly, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in the absence of satisfactory explanation as required under the law.
Before us, the ld. AR Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate refers to the statement of facts and submits that the assessment order is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of IT Act. He submits that the assessee has not deposited any cash in the bank account mentioned in the assessment order, all the bank accounts mentioned in the assessment order were fraudulent bank accounts opened by somebody and the assessee do not have any connection with the bank account and a police complaint lodged by the assessee to that effect. The ld. AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vijayakumar v. ITO vide order dated 04.06.2025 in 663 & 664/Chny/2025 for AYs 2017-18, 2017-18 & 2018-19, and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing and allow the grounds of appeal.
The ld. DR Shri Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and argued that no lenient view be taken in the case of the assessee. He refers to the assessment order as well as ld. CIT(A) and submits that both the authorities below have given ample opportunities to the assessee seeking explanation in respect of the cash deposits as found by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s account, but, however, no response from the assessee neither to the notice under section 148 of the Act nor to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act and show-cause notices. He argued vehemently the fact and circumstances in the case of Shri Vijayakumar v. ITO (supra) are different and cannot be applicable in the present case.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, we find that as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, many opportunities were given by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), but, however, no compliance bring on record the actual facts before the authorities below. Further we note that no evidence was brought on record showing the proof of any police case or investigation pending in the case of the assessee before us enabling the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we find force in the argument of the ld. DR that the findings rendered by the ITAT, Chennai Benches in the case of Shri Vijayakumar is not applicable. Therefore, having nothing on record, the submissions of the ld. AR in remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer is not acceptable and thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 22nd October, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026