SREE MANGOTTU KAVU DEVASWOM,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

ITA 263/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation that the cash deposits were "vazhipadu collections" to be plausible. It held that the addition made by the AO for alleged failure to prove the explanation with documentary evidence was not justified and directed its deletion.

What were the facts?

Sree Mangottu Kavu Devaswom, a temple trust, filed a nil return for AY 2017-18. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,45,000 for cash deposits during demonetization, which the trust claimed were "vazhipadu collections." The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting the amount was not reflected in the closing balance.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Officer was justified in adding cash deposits made during demonetization, which the appellant claimed originated from "vazhipadu collections," due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Hearing: 05.05.2025

Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sree Mangottu Kavu Devaswom The Income Tax Officer Athipotta Post v. Ward 5 Alathur, Palakkad – 678 544. Palakkad. PAN : AAITS5711J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.B.Mohan, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“Addl.CIT(A)” for short] dated 24.02.2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust, running an ancient temple coming under the Malabar Devaswom Board of State Government of Kerala. The appellant filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 disclosing Nil income on 30th March, 2019. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-5, Palakkad (hereinafter “the AO”) vide order dated 10th December, 2019, passed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) at a total income of Rs.1,45,000. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the cash deposits . Shree Mangottu Kavu Devaswom. made in specified bank notes during the demonetization period, being the amount of vazhipadu collections, for failure of the appellant to produce documentary evidences to substantiate its claim.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the said amount was not reflected in the closing balance as on 08.11.2016.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal.

The learned Senior DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

I heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the AO was justified in making addition of cash deposit made in specified bank notes during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.1,45,000, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the source of the said deposit was from vazhipadu collection. On a mere perusal of the assessment order, it would be clear that the AO made an addition for the alleged failure of the appellant to prove the explanation with documentary evidences. I am of the opinion that having regard to the explanation filed before the lower authorities, it is a plausible explanation and cannot be rejected. Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the addition.

Order pronounced on this 08th day of May, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →