PULLOKARAN VARGHESE NIXON,CHALAKUDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), THRISSUR, THRISSUR
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act for Rs.1,67,08,250, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs.73,33,250. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to appreciate the proportionate addition required, given scattered investments across different years.
Held
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to examine the issue afresh, specifically considering the period of investments vis-à-vis the additions under Section 69 of the Act, and afford the assessee a meaningful opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 69 for unexplained investments was correctly made, considering the scattered nature of investments over multiple years and the appropriate proportionate addition.
Sections Cited
69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member ITA No.808/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 Pullokaran Varghese Nixon The Income Tax Officer Pullokkaran House v. Ward 2(3) Elinjipra Road Thrissur. Chalakudy – 680 721. PAN : ANNPN0147K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 27.05.2025. O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 09.07.2024, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066512123(1) and relates to the assessment year 2016- 2017.
The assessee has raised 12 grounds of appeal, however, the solitary issue involved in this case is the addition of Rs.1,67,08,250 u/s.69 of the Act, which has been reduced to Rs.73,33,250 by the CIT(A).
2 ITA No.808/Coch/2024. Pullokaran Varghese Nixon. 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the AO has failed to appreciate that proportionate addition ought to have been made because the assessee has scattered investments in property in three different years. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has not been able to appreciate the fact correctly.
The learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration at the end of the Assessing Officer, because the AO will examine the entire issue afresh after considering the period of investments vis-à-vis additions made by him u/s.69 of the Act. With these observations, we restore this matter back to the file of the AO for examining afresh. Needless to say, the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee, before passing any order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of May, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (Prakash Chand Yadav) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 30th May, 2025. Devadas G*
3 ITA No.808/Coch/2024. Pullokaran Varghese Nixon.
Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin
