S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT

127 ITR 807High Court1981#2189 most cited

What is S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee explains a cash deposit in a bank account as sourced from a prior withdrawal from the same bank, the source is prima facie demonstrated. The revenue cannot disbelieve this explanation merely on surmise, but must prove that the previously withdrawn cash was not available for redeposit.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,406 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT · S.R. Venkata Ratnam 127 ITR 807 · cash deposit explained · prior bank withdrawal · source of funds · Section 68 · Section 69A · unexplained money · onus of proof · prima facie explanation · Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

6 Taxmann 263

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 115BBESection 143(3)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 148Section 143(2)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 158bcsurrender of incomepreponderance of probabilityunexplained moneysection 115bbsection 115bsection 158blimited scrutinysection 69section 69aput to usesection 158

Judgments citing S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT

Pramod Basavaraj, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Mysuru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2384/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

…ncumbent upon the Assessing Officer to carry out necessary verification before drawing an adverse inference. 11.4 At this juncture, we also find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT in (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Kar.), wherein it was held that once the assessee discloses a particular source of money, the revenue authorities cannot reject the explanation merely on conjectures and surmises without making proper investigation. The Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee had stated that the funds originated from withdrawal from a bank deposit, the As…

Jayakumar Thomas Jayaraj, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2885/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2885/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jayakumar Thomas, 3/69K, Madurai-Kanyakumari Bye Pass Road, Reddiyar Patti, Tirunelveli-627 002. [Pan: Acppj 8535 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Circle-1, Tirunelveli. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Joshita Jothi प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”), Delhi, Dated 25.08.2025 For The

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita JothiFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 68

…considered view, in the absence of any positive finding or evidence to contradict the assessee's explanation, the presumption that the cash deposits are unexplained is not sustainable. 25. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 807 (Kar) has held as under: "....once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to concern themselves with what the assessee did with that money, i.e., whether he had kept the same in his house or utilised the services of a bank by d…

Rohit Pobbathi Ashok, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2198/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…s made merely on presumption and without bringing any material evidence on record to show that the cash deposits represented undisclosed income. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkataratnam vs. CIT (127 ITR 807), wherein it was held that if the Assessing Officer disbelieves the explanation regarding past savings, he must conduct further enquiry to disprove the same and cannot make an addition based on suspicion. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee explained the complete source of the amount of Rs.12 lakhs deposited in the bank. It was subm…

K Vinothkumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2776/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Kaarthick, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

…on that he had sufficient cash to re-deposit, and therefore, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the adverse view taken by AO and brought to our notice the observation of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. VentakaratnamVs CIT, Karnataka-I & Others 127 ITR 807, wherein it was held that once the assessee discloses the source as having come from the withdrawals made on a given date from a given bank, it was not open to the revenue to examine as to what the assessee did with that money and cannot choose to disbelieve the plea of the assessee merely on the surmise that it would not be probable for the asse…

Vijay Premraj Purohit, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1905/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dinar Daptari &For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

…withdrawals duly supported by bank statements, cash book etc. and when the Ld.AO has not brought any adverse material on record, the same cannot be treated as unexplained and no addition can be made u/s. 69A of the Act. i. S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Kar.- HC) ii. Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya vs. ITO (ITA No. 684/BANG/2022, dt. 23.11.2022) (Bang. - ITAT) iii. Deepak Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO (ITA No. 2597/DEL/2024, dt. 04.06.2024) (Del. - ITAT) iv. DCIT vs. Smt. Veena Awasthi (ITA No. 215/LKW/2016, dt. 30.11.2018) (Luck. - ITAT) v. Ajay Datta vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1183/JPR/2024, 07.01.2025) (Jaipur…

Sundaram Subramanian Rep. by Legal Heir S Sundaram, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2420/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

…ited is sourced out of earlier withdrawals only, more particularly when they are undertaken in the same bank accounts held by the assessee. 30. This legal position has been explained by Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkatraman vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 807 (Kar), wherein it has been held that, once the assessee disclosed the source as withdrawals made on a given date from a given bank, it was not open to the revenue to examine as to what the assessee did with that money and it cannot chose to disbelieve :-10-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 the plea of the assessee merely on the surmise that it w…

Sundaram Subramanian, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

…ited is sourced out of earlier withdrawals only, more particularly when they are undertaken in the same bank accounts held by the assessee. 30. This legal position has been explained by Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkatraman vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 807 (Kar), wherein it has been held that, once the assessee disclosed the source as withdrawals made on a given date from a given bank, it was not open to the revenue to examine as to what the assessee did with that money and it cannot chose to disbelieve :-10-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 the plea of the assessee merely on the surmise that it w…

Deven Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…cash in hand for a long period and therefore, the explanation of the appellant that Cash deposited in Bank during Demonetization was sourced from Surrendered Cash during A.Y 2014-15. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Ventakaratnam Vs CIT (1981)127 ITR 807 (Karnataka) has observed as under: "There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the argument advanced by the revenue is, therefore, without any force. Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents Nos. 1…

Sudhir Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Dc/Ac Circle 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…cash in hand for a long period and therefore, the explanation of the appellant that Cash deposited in Bank during Demonetization was sourced from Surrendered Cash during A.Y 2014-15. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Ventakaratnam Vs CIT (1981)127 ITR 807 (Karnataka) has observed as under: “There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the argument advanced by the revenue is, therefore, without any force. Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents Nos. 1…

Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5900/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Plot No.50, Flat No.A-201, Delhi. Parshav Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aacck6905F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…had duly been accepted. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. reported in 212 ITR 417 (Cal) b) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 288 (SC) c) S.R. Venkataraman vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 807 (Kar) 5.2 Ld. AO having accepted the books of accountsof assessee cannot even discard a part of trading account i.e. cash sales in the instant case. Ld. AO has not even disputed such cash sales, had it been so then he would have reduced the declared turnover by Rs.44,08,165/-. In absence of any defect in the books of accounts maintained by the…

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…e period of holding of cash on hand before cash deposit in the banks are tabulated as under: Page 11 ITA Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 S.No Name of the case & Citation Holding Period 1 Vinkata Ratnam (SR) 127 ITR 807(Kar) 24 Months 2 Vinod Kimar Goel ITA 310/JP/08 18 Months 3. Hemant Prabhakar ITA No.684/JP/98, 31 taxworld 198 14 Months 4. R.K. Dave 94 TTJ (Jod) 19 07 Months 5. Surendra Singh ITA No.650/JP/2011 5-9 Months 6. CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 201 CTR 54 (All) 5-8 Months 7. Veerappa Shetty ITA No.5276/M/2011 3.5 Months 8. Anupama Chaudhary ITA No. 4155/D…

Anil Kumar Agarwal, Agra vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Anil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dy. Cit, 44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampa3335J Assessee By : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajni Kant Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…h the assessee for explaining the cash deposits made at a later date within the year. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the Learned AR on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S R Venkata Ratnam vs CIT reported in (2:36) 127 ITR 807 (Kar). Hence, I have no hesitation to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs. 11 lakhs on account of cash deposits and hold that the entire cash deposits had been duly explained by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the incident case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on merits are allowed. 6. Since the relief is gra…

Usha Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 44(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1233/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…k. CASES RELIED UPON: A. Where assessee had explained source of such cash deposit to be amount earlier withdrawn by her from bank account and said cash amount was redeposited than duration/purpose of holding cash not relevant: S.R. Venkata Ratnam V CIT [1981] 127 ITR 807 (Karnataka)-(79-80)--Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents Nos 1 and 2 to concern themselves with what the assessee did with that money, i.e. whether he had kept the same in his house or utilized the services of a bank by depositing t…

Late Shri Ram Babu Gupta, Firozabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Surya Kant Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Ram Ward-2(2)(1), Babu Gupta Up 274, Gali No. 1, Pameshwar Gate, Firozabad – 283203 Pan: Aidpg6713H Assessee By : Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

…the assessee and that the same is not available as a cash source for explaining the cash deposits made in the bank account. My view is further fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkataratnam Vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 807 (Kar). 6. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra), I hold that no part of the cash deposit made in the bank account remains unexplained by the assessee. Hence, there is no case for making any addition by treating the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69 read with Section 115BB…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 602/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…account is preceded by withdrawal of money from the very same bank account, then the source of funds is prima facie demonstrated or explained by the Assessee. The Honorable Karnataka High Court in the case of S. R. Ventakaratnam Vs CIT, Karnataka- 1 & Others 127 ITR 807 has held that once the Assessee discloses the source as having come from the withdrawals made on a given date from a given bank, it was not open to the revenue to examine as to what the Assessee did with that money and cannot chose to disbelieve the plea of the Assessee merely on the surmise that it would not be probable for the Assessee to keep…

Jalappa Parvathi Devi, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward 6(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 811/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jalappa Parvathi Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Naraganahalli, Ward – 6(3)(4), Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore. Bengaluru – 561203. PAN – AKIPP 1443 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department Date of hearing : 23.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Jaipur, Highcourt Circle vs. Late Vandana Agarwal Through Legal Heir Sh. Nishit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1237/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e appellant has stated that the cash was not handed over in anybody's. personal custody but was kept at the residential premises of the appellant in Jaipur itself. In this regard the appellant has placed reliance on the case of S.R.Vekataratnam v/s CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Kar.) where it has been held that "Once the assessee disclosed the source emanating from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, the revenue was not concerned with what the assessee did with that money. Without proper investigation as to the genuineness of such deposits or documentary evidence, the ITO could not merely surmise tha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 603/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:603/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tax, Vs. 3, Ml Theri Road, Keeraikaranthattu, Central Circle -2, Mahadevankulam, Madurai. Tirunelveli – 627 657. [Pan:Abxpj-7672-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:603/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tax, vs. 3, ML Theri Road, Keeraikaranthattu, Central Circle -2, Mahadevankulam, Madurai. Tirunelveli – 627 657. [PAN:ABXPJ-7672-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/…

Savitrivasudeva Govinda Rao, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2072/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, Advocate
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

…ve also considered the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal which was relied on by the assessee in which this Tribunal following the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT reported in (1981) 127 ITR 807, had held that to disbelieve the plea of the assessee that the cash withdrawals are there, the revenue must show that the previous withdrawal of cash would not have been available with the assessee on the deposit of cash in the bank account. The above finding given by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Shri Narayana Shibaroor Shibar…

Ganapathy Panneerselvam, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward 19(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganapathy Panneerselvam, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.19, New No.49, Vs. Non-Corp. Ward -19(4), Chetty Street, Chennai. Saidapet West, Chennai – 600 015. [Pan:Bikpp-3640-L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. & Shri. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…he addition made by the Assessing Officer, and the reliance placed on them by the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition is unwarranted. 16. The ld. AR, placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 807 (Kar) and in :-10-: ITA. No:609/Chny/2025 Smt.P.Padmavathi v. ITO (ITA No. 414/2009, dated 06.10.2020), submitted that once the assessee has satisfactorily established the source of the cash deposit as being from prior withdrawals from a disclosed bank account, such explanation cannot be disregarded in the absence of any material evidence to the…