THE VELLUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD 3 , KANNUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee bears the responsibility to plead and prove all relevant facts.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a cooperative bank, received demonetized Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) from its account holders during regular banking activities. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,46,06,000 under Section 69 as unexplained money.
What were the issues?
Whether the demonetized SBNs received by the assessee from its account holders constitute unexplained money under Section 69, and if the assessee provided sufficient KYC details for its account holders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Asst.Year 2017-2018 The Vellur Service Co-operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited, Vellur Ward - 3 v. Kannur. Payyanur, Kannur – 670 307. PAN : AAAAV3424A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in for assessment year 2017-2018 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055242833(1) dated 18.08.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in this instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action making sec.69 unexplained money addition of Rs.3,46,06,000, in the course of assessment dated 30.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Learned counsel vehemently submits that the assessee had received the impugned demonetized specific bank note “SBNs” from its account holders in regular banking activity only and therefore, this sec.69 addition deserves to be deleted.
The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that all the KYC details of the corresponding members / account holders have neither filed nor processed.
Face with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, subject to a rider that it shall be the assessee’s entire risk and responsibility to plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing on consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026