DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI vs. RATHINAM PRABAKARAN, KARUR

ITA 1154/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: the Hon'ble IT Settlement Commission. However, the A.O did not accept the assessee's explanation and noted that Shri Seetharaman during the settlement proceedings before the Hon'ble IT Settlement Commission had offered amounts of Rs.1 Crore and Rs.1.90 Crores for the A.Y 2016-17 and 2017-18, respectively, which were outstanding, but has not offered the loan of Rs.2 Crores advanced during the previous year relevant to A.Y 2015-16. The A.O therefore made addition of Rs.2 Crores as unexplained8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2 Crores. It noted that Shri Seetharaman had already declared Rs. 2.90 Crores as income for subsequent years related to the loan, and the AO cannot adopt conflicting positions for the same transaction. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's name was not mentioned in the seized material, making the addition against the assessee untenable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual in money lending, was subjected to reassessment under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 after the AO found an alleged Rs. 2 Crore loan advanced to Shri Seetharaman, which the assessee had not declared. The AO added this amount as unexplained investment under Section 69. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, leading the Revenue to appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Validity of reopening assessment under Section 147 based on search material when Section 153C might be applicable. 2. Justification for addition of unexplained investment under Section 69, particularly when the alleged loan recipient had already accounted for the amount and the assessee denied the transaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 153C,Section 69,Section 245I,Section 245D(4),Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 09.07.2025Pronounced: 29.09.2025

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 05.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 26.03.2022. Rathinam Prabakaran :- 2 -:

2.

There is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue.

The Revenue has filed

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →