ARIEF NAGOOR ARIEF,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had now produced various details before it, which were not available to the Assessing Officer. Considering the Revenue's concession, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a commission agent, had cash credits in his bank accounts. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹.62,81,400/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for failing to substantiate the genuineness of these credits.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits was justified, especially when the assessee presented new evidence before the appellate tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” �यायपीठ, चे�नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी धु�वु� आर.एल रे�डी, �या�यक सद�य के सम� Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2590/Chny/2017 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Arief Nagoor Arief, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 24, New No. 32, Venkata Iyer Vs. Income Tax, Street, 2nd Floor, Mannadi, Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [PAN: ADAPA9508Q] (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of hearing : 01.05.2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai dated 22.08.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹.62,81,400/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a commission agent, filed his return declaring income of ₹.44,86,430/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessee filed all details against statutory notices. After scrutiny of the details filed by the assessee, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by making addition to the extent of ₹.62,81,400/- towards cash credits in the bank accounts since the assessee has failed to produce evidence to substantiate genuineness of credits.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assessee failed to produce supporting evidence, etc.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing various detailed as required and sought for, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act.
On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below and fairly conceded that the issue may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer since the assessee has filed various details, which required to be verified by the Assessing Officer.
We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Since the assessee has not produced any evidence with regard to the genuineness of the cash credit, the Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Act. Before us, by filing various details such as, list containing the source explained by assessee for the amounts deposited in the bank, confirmation from various creditors, ROI of assessee’s wife for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14, receipt of property tax, rental agreement, etc, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act. However, we find that the above details were not available before the Assessing Officer while concluding the assessment. Since, the ld. DR was of the opinion that the above details filed by the assessee required to be examined by the Assessing Officer, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to examine the details as may be produced by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all details/evidences before the Assessing Officer for verification. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 24th May, 2018 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026