Late N. Rajendran v. ACIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, capital gains, and money lending. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04.08.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.15,62,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS after issuing statutory notices under the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made a deposit of specified bank notes to the tune of Rs.49,00,500/- in various bank accounts during the assessment year and accepted the explanation given by the assessee to the tune of Rs.22,31,500/- and the balance amount of Rs.26,69,000/- has been added as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and passed an order u/s. 143(3) on 29.12.2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the assessee claimed that the details of amounts collected from sundry debtors before the announcement of demonetization on 08.11.2016 had been furnished to the Assessing Officer, which has not been considered. However, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.01.2024, by holding as under: The addition of Rs.26,69,000/- as unexplained income u/s.69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the appellant have been perused. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant could not explain the sources for sundry debtors amou…

Legal Issues

• 1. The order of CIT(A) NFAC dated 18.01.2024 confirming the deposit of SBN currencies of Rs.26,69,000 is against the facts of the case and natural justice (Total Tax effect Rs.20,61,802)
• 2. The Appellant e-filed the details of collection from Sundry Debtors amounting to Rs.28,00,000 with letter dated 12.12.2019 which was not considered by ACIT circle-I, Hosur in confirming the addition of Rs.26,69,000.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Neha Wadhwa vs. ITO

  Jaipur bench

• Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• The Rasulpur Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Moga

  Amritsar bench

• Ballapuram Venugopal Chinnakrishnachetty vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• ITA No 523 of 2024 Madhavapeddy Sudhakar

  Hyderabad bench

• Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

  Chennai bench