VEDHA,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HOSUR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ ायपीठ चेई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Vedha,
3/144, Checkpost Ward-3,
Nallur, Hosur,
Krishnagiri-635103 (Tamil Nadu)
Ward-1,
Hosur.
Appellant/ Assessee

Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate.
Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT.
Date of hearing
16/09/2025
Date of pronouncement
26/09/2025

PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 14/11/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18
as per ground of appeal on record.
2. Rival contentions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is an individual and derives interest income on the Fixed deposit and Savings bank account maintained with the banks and also derives Agricultural income. The assessee has also been deriving income from dairy and agricultural income for the past 25 years. For the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed a return of income on 25/10/2019 disclosing an income of Rs.3,90,292/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,00,000/- in response to 2
ITA1924/Chny/2025
Vedha Vs ITO notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) dated 09-03-2018. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, issued various statutory notices but the assessee did not respond. The assessee now has stated that the same was occurred due to the fact that the assessee underwent twin surgeries and was confined to bed and was not in a position to respond to any of the letters. However the assessee filed a return of income on 25-10-2019 in response to the notice u/s 142(1). The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits in the State Bank of India during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 14,38,000/- and also the cash deposit made in the non demonetization period amounting to Rs.12,51,000/-. The assessee explained the same as out of opening cash and current year agricultural income with reference to the cash flow arrived at by her. The AO rejected the submissions and treated the total deposits amounting to Rs 26,89,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A and also invoked the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account and proof of agriculture activities and agriculture income.
4. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal.
5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing.

3
ITA1924/Chny/2025
ITA1924/Chny/2025
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025
*Ranjan
Copy to:
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. CIT
4. DR
5. Guard File

By order

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai