The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reassessment, allowing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the Rs. 51.20 Lacs cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Ganesan Nakkeeran,appellant-assessee,filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the CIT(A) on 17-06-2024, which upheld the addition of Rs. 51.20 Lacs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act after the appellant deposited more than Rs. 10 Lacs in his bank account and engaged in share transactions, despite being a non-filer of income tax returns.
The assessee explained that the deposited amount was used to purchase shares on behalf of his brother-in-law, Mr. Maruthuvanan Senthil Nathan, an NRI. The assessee stated that the cash was withdrawn from Mr. Nathan’s bank account at the SBI Guindy branch and that the assessee was authorized to operate the account to make investments as directed by Mr. Nathan. To support this claim, the assessee submitted a letter from Mr. Senthil Nathan.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
However, upon further investigation, it was discovered that the bank account in question did not belong to Mr. Senthil Nathan, which led the Assessing Officer (AO) to reject the assessee’s explanation. Consequently, the AO added the entire deposit of Rs. 51.20 Lacs to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.
The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s addition, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient supporting documents or evidence to substantiate his claim. Dissatisfied with the decision, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, requesting another opportunity to present additional evidence that could support his case.
Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now
The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) opposed this request, pointing to the findings in the AO’s assessment order.
The two member bench comprising Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) acknowledging the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his case.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the case to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to present the necessary evidence to support his claim.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
