BALAKRISHNAN RAMANATHAN,GOBICHETTIPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

Assessment Years: 2012-13 Balakrishnan Ramanathan, Income Tax Officer, No.17, Canal Street, Ward-2(1), Gobichettipalayam, Erode. Tamil Nadu-638 452. [PAN: AEGPR4674H] Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 06.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, (herein after called CIT(A)’ in short], Nashik, dated 29.08.2025 for AY-2012-13.

2.0 Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular income of return for the Assessment Year-2012-13 was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.45,60,995/- in the saving bank account maintained with bank during the Financial Year–2012-13, the AO formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 on 11.03.2019. In response to the notice 148, the appellant filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,20,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Erode (hereinafter called “AO”) vide order dated 04.10.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.4,84,880/-. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposits in bank account as business turnover of the appellant and estimated profit at 8% of such turnover. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.3,64,880/- and completed the assessment.

3.0 Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the bank account in which the cash deposits were made, belong to HUF of the appellant. Therefore, no addition is required to be made in the hands of the appellant. However, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by holding that the appellant failed to adduce evidence to substantiate claim. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us.

4.0 The learned Counsel submits that the bank account in which cash deposits were made belongs to HUF of the appellant. He further submits that for the purpose of compliance with the KYC norms, the bank sought for Page - 2 - of 4 the personal KYC of the appellant. The AO wrongly presumed that the bank account belongs to the appellant. He, further, submits that for the assessment 2017-18, the NFAC had accepted the claim of the appellant. Even for the assessment year 2011-12, this tribunal restored the matter to the file of AO for the verification of the claim. Thus, he submits that the matter may be restored to the file of AO for due verification of the claim in accordance with law. On the other hand, the learned Sr.DR has no serious objection for the above submissions.

5.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to taxability of the cash deposits in bank account. The claim of the appellant that the bank account in which the cash deposits made belong to the HUF of the appellant, requires verification by the AO in view of the orders passed by this tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12. Accordingly, the order passed by the NFAC is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of NFAC for de novo adjudication after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Page - 3 - of 4

Order pronounced on 6th , January-2026 at Chennai.