KUNHI KOYATHENGAL SAKIM THANGAL MULLAKOYA,THRISSUR vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE INT. TAX, KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and DRP did not consider the peak amount or telescoping of withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 40.90 lakhs as unexplained money on account of cash deposits in his bank accounts. The assessee had made numerous cash deposits and withdrawals over a period of time.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A was justified without considering the peak balance or telescoping of withdrawals.
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
This assessee’s appeal, for the assessment year 2014- 2015, arise against the order of the Disputes Resolution Panel-2 [“DRP’’], Bengaluru, Bengaluru’s directions u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act").
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 ITA.No.202/COCH./2023 2. It emerges at the very out that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action making sec.69A unexplained money addition of Rs.40.90 lakhs representing cash deposits made in his bank account(s). Learned counsel invited our attention to assessment discussion in page-2 that the assessee had in fact carried-out 77 entries of cash deposits and withdrawals for the period from 02.03.2013 to 31.03.2014 involving varying sums. That being the case, there is no rebuttal from the department’s side either indicating the learned assessing authority to have gone by the peak amount or any telescoping of the corresponding withdrawals either in the course of assessment or in learned Dispute Resolution Panel’s [DRP] directions.
Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to direct the assessee to file his cash flow statement as well as reconciliation of all the withdrawals/alleged deposits before the learned Assessing Officer for his fresh appropriate examination within three effective opportunities at his own risk and responsibility. The Assessing Officer shall indeed consider the 3 ITA.No.202/COCH./2023 same as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.08.2024.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026