KRISHNAN RAJARAMAN,PONDICHERRY vs. RADHAKRISHNAN, PONDICHERRY
Facts
The Assessing Officer (A.O.) reopened the assessment based on information about the assessee having cash deposits of Rs. 31,50,000 in the bank. The A.O. completed the assessment by adding the entire cash deposit as unexplained. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee is a senior citizen and for the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the A.O. for fresh consideration of the impugned issue after calling for relevant details.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the bank were sufficiently explained and whether the reopening of assessment was justified.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 26.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The A.O received information that the assessee has cash deposits in bank amounting to Rs.31,50,000/-. Therefore, the A.O reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O completed the
ITA No.3381/Chny/2025 Krishnan Rajaraman :- 2 -: assessment u/s. 147 of the Act r.w.s 144 of the Act by adding the entire cash deposit as unexplained. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
There is a delay in filing the appeal before us and the assessee has made application for condonation. Having heard the ld DR and the petition of the assessee we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
None appeared for the assessee and we heard the ld DR. The assessee has made written submissions stating that – “I respectfully submit the following explanation in connection with the additions made during the assessment, pertaining to the cash deposits in my bank account. I am a retired Government School Teacher, having served in the Department of Education, Government of Puducherry, for a period of approximately 39 years from 18.06.1966 to 31.05.2005. Upon my retirement, I received my retirement benefits, which included gratuity, the commuted value of pension, General Provident Fund GPF, leave encashment, and a monthly pension. These amounts were sanctioned by the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Government of Puducherry, and paid through cheques. As per government procedures at the time, the cheques were not account payee but bearer cheques, and an officer from the department accompanied me to the bank for enashment. The total amount was received legally and constitutes exempt or non taxable income under various provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Pension Payment Order PPO number issued to me is 16797, which confirms my eligibility and receipt of the above mentioned benefits. The cash deposits were primarily made from amounts that had already been withdrawn from the bank, as I was initially considering investing the funds
ITA No.3381/Chny/2025 Krishnan Rajaraman :- 3 -: in local cooperative society. However, due to personal preferences and advice received, I decided not to proceed with the FD and therefore redeposited the funds into my savings account. These transactions are circular in nature, consisting of withdrawals and subsequent redeposits. All the funds involved originate from my retirement benefits. Additionally, certain amounts that had been lent to my son were returned in cash, and those amounts were deposited accordingly. Further, I would like to bring to your kind attention that the Income Tax Department has already recovered some amount from my bank accounts. An amount of 197900 was recovered from my Axis Bank savings account number 919010081419241 via demand draft number 92777. Additionally, an amount of 684000 was recovered from my Axis Bank fixed deposit account number 92104005172304 through demand draft number 92794. As these amounts pertain to the same issue and were recovered without final resolution, I respectfully request that these amounts may kindly be refunded to me at the earliest.”
In the light of the above submissions and considering the fact that the assessee being super senior citizen we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case properly before the lower authorities in interest of natural justice and fair play. Accordingly we remit the appeal back to the AO for consideration of the impugned issue afresh by calling for relevant details to decide in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the required details and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th day of January, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग#र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 28th January, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA No.3381/Chny/2025 Krishnan Rajaraman :- 4 -: आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
