MARAPPA GOUNDER KRISHNASAMY,NAMAKKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NAMAKKAL

This appeal is filed with a delay of 201 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons in support of an affidavit. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, I find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

The assessee raised 9 grounds of appeal challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The ld. DR Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT vehemently opposed the same and requested not to remand the matter as it is relating to AY 2011-12. Thus, I am of the view that no purpose would serve by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessment year is nearly 15 years old.

Coming to the merits of the case, it is noted that the Assessing Officer added 10% of the total transaction valued at ₹.36,36,460/- with M/s. Multi Commodity Exchange, Mumbai, which comes to ₹.3,63,650/- to the total income of the assessee. As discussed above, no evidence was furnished to rebut the view of the Assessing officer or before the ld. CIT(A). Before the Tribunal, I find that the ld. AR referred to the income tax return and computation statement of income and argued that the Assessing Officer did not consider the same as it was available before the Assessing Officer. Further, he argued that the Assessing Officer arbitrarily added 10% of the future and option, but not considered unfavourable balance in future and option. The ld. AR requested to consider the business income of ₹.1,47,588/- offered under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

The ld. DR vehemently opposed the same and submits that there was no compliance before the Assessing Officer in response to notices under section 148, 142(1)/129 of the Act and reposting letter and referred to para 4 of the assessment order. Further, she referred to para 3.5 of the impugned order and submits that there was no explanation filed before the ld. CIT(A) in challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting 10% of the total transaction as income of the assessee.

After hearing both the parties, I note that there was no compliance of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). Taking into account the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of estimation and considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, I am of the opinion that 5% of the total transaction of ₹.36,36,460/-, which comes to ₹.1,81,823/- would be reasonable to make addition and the balance addition of ₹.1,81,823/- is deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 04th September, 2025 at Chennai.