Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada on 18 March, 2026
आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण, विशाखापट्नम बेंच में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam
श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री ओम्कारे श्वर चिदारा, माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.111/Viz/2024
(निर्धा रण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Vs. Income Tax Officer
Subba Raju Ward -1
Kakinada Kakinada
PAN : AWLPP7090E
(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)
करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri GNV Ravi Shankar,
Assessee Represented by Advocate
राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri D.Hema Bhupal,
Department Represented by Sr.AR
सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 17.02.2026
Date of Conclusion of Hearing
घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 18.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement
ORDER
PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, A.M :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ["Ld.CIT(A)"], National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC"), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059496191(1) dated 09.01.2024, arising out of order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax 2 ITA No.111/Viz/2024 Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Raju Act, 1961 ("the Act"), dated 18.12.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18.
2. In the above cited appeal, the appellant filed an appeal before ITAT, stating that all the cash deposits made in their bank accounts were duly accounted in their books of accounts. But the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the arguments of the appellant and confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO, holding that the cash deposits made into their bank accounts during the year under consideration was not explained.
3. Before going to adjudicate the appeal, it is found that the appellant filed the appeal with the delay of 10 days. During the period under consideration, the appellant has gone to Varanasi on the occasion of Mahashivrathri and on return from Varanasi, the appellant suffered severe cold, body pains and high fever. Recovery of health took some time and hence there is a small delay. During the appeal proceedings before the Bench, the Ld.AR of the appellant has requested that the delay is very minimal, it took some time to compile the papers to file appeal before the ITAT. Hence, the Ld.AR of the appellant requested to condone the small delay and requested the Bench to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Taking into consideration 3 ITA No.111/Viz/2024 Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Raju the facts and circumstances, the Bench decided to condone the delay and proceeded to hearing the appeal of the appellant.
4. From the assessment order, it is observed that the appellant has deposited cash of Rs.73.07 lakhs in Syndicate Bank account No.32601470000047. The appellant was requested by the Ld.AO to explain the source of the cash deposits. The appellant, during the assessment proceedings has replied that he has carried on business of purchase and sale of fish during this year, in which there is a turnover of Rs.62.31 lakhs and there is expenditure of Rs.56.63 lakhs. Since there is no proper documentary evidence for the fish business, the Ld.AO disbelieved the version of the appellant. The Ld.AO at para 8, page 4 of the assessment order has stated that the appellant has paid certain amounts to Mr.NSN Reddy and Mr.N.Ramalingeswara Reddy by way of DD and prior to that cash was deposited. The Ld.AO finally concluded that the assessee is doing real estate activity on a large scale and there is no evidence of fish business as claimed by the appellant and hence cash deposits made into the savings bank account during the demonetization period was added by the Ld.AO while completing the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.
4ITA No.111/Viz/2024
Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Raju
5. Aggrieved by the additions made in the assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). During the appeal proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the appellant has stated that he received Rs.62 lakhs towards sale of fish. There are bank overdrafts to the extent of Rs.75 lakhs and cash was withdrawn from the bank overdrafts etc. Again the appellant could not furnish documentary evidence to show that he has indulged in purchase and sale of fish and also cash was withdrawn from the bank overdrafts and also cash claimed to have been collected from some people etc, the Ld.CIT(A) gave opportunities to the appellant to produce the documentary evidence for the claims made by the appellant. The Ld.CIT(A) has noted that the appellant has shown only one bank account in the return of income, i.e., State Bank of India in his income tax return and other two bank accounts maintained with Syndicate bank, Kakinada were not reported. The cash deposits and withdrawals from these bank accounts were treated as unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE and were added accordingly. The Ld.CIT(A) has requested for further details in support of claims relating to fish business. Despite repeated opportunities including the video conference facility given to the appellant, no further evidences were furnished before the First Appellate Authority. Finally, the Ld.CIT(A) has concluded that inspite of repeated opportunities being 5 ITA No.111/Viz/2024 Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Raju provided over a period of 2 ½ years through hearing notices, which were duly served on the e-mail mentioned in the latest Income Tax return as well as e-mail mentioned in Form 35, the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence with regard to the sources of cash, which is being deposited in the bank accounts. Since the onus relating to deposit the cash was not discharged by the appellant, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition.
6. As there is no relief from First Appellate Authority, the appellant filed an appeal before ITAT and submitted that he has done business of fish during this year by taking certain lands on lease and fish ponds were constructed on the same. It is also submitted by the Ld.AR of the appellant that the firm has collected certain cash from its clients/purchasers of sites and the same was also deposited into the bank account. Thus he has explained the sources of all the cash deposits, which were disbelieved by the lower authorities. Since his business activity is genuine and backed by all the entries in the books of accounts, the addition made as unexplained cash deposits may be deleted and justice be rendered.
7. The Ld.DR has argued that despite several opportunities given by the Ld.AO/Ld.CIT(A), the appellant could not furnish the details and evidences relating to the business of fish as well as 6 ITA No.111/Viz/2024 Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Raju advances received from the clients/purchasers of plots, the addition made by the Ld.AO should be confirmed towards the unexplained cash credits into the bank accounts of the appellant. Moreover, the bank accounts, where the cash was deposited were also not reflected in the income tax return, hence, it is deemed that the cash deposited during the year under consideration is unexplained and hence the addition made by the Ld.AO should be confirmed.
8. Heard rival submissions. From the very detailed discussions made by the Ld.AO/Ld.CIT(A), the Bench has observed that the appellant could not furnish any evidences relating to the purchase and sale of fish by way of cash, details relating to constructing fish ponds as well as the persons from whom the cash was collected towards deposits for the real estate business was also not furnished and hence the onus to explain the cash deposits was not fully discharged by the appellant. But the Ld.AR of the appellant has requested that one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to explain the sources of cash deposits along with required details and documentary evidence, the Bench decided to give one more opportunity to the appellant. As mentioned above, the appellant has not furnished the evidences relating to cash deposits, it is decided to impose cost of Rs.10,000/- which should be paid to AP 7 ITA No.111/Viz/2024 Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Raju State Legal Services Authority, within 15 days from the receipt of this order. After going through the facts of the case, the Bench decided to give one more opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits and the issue is remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a condition of payment of Rs.10,000/- as mentioned above. The appellant is directed to furnish all the evidences required by the First Appellate Authority with respect to the cash deposits made in their bank accounts and the appellant is further directed not to seek adjournments. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to take into consideration all the evidences and pass order afresh. In this process, the Ld.CIT(A) may call for the remand report if required and pass order.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(रवीश सूद) (ओम्कारे श्वर चिदारा)
(RAVISH SOOD) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA)
न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Visakhapatnam
dated 18.03.2026.
L.Rama/sps
8
ITA No.111/Viz/2024
Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Raju
आदे शकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. निर्धा ऩरती/The : Shri Pinnamaraju Surya Venkata Subba Assessee Raju, 2-46-26/19, FF-1, NPCL No.2, Near D Mart, Revenue Ward-5, Sri Vidya Colony, Kakinada
2. रधजस्व/ The : The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Revenue Kakinada
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam
4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनिनर् , आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, नवशधखधपट् िम / The DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam
5. गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदे शधिुसधर / BY ORDER LOKIREDDI RAMA cn=LOKIREDDI RAMA c=IN o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ou=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2026-03-25 13:18+05:30 Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam