Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore

Channegowda Channankaiah,Karnataka vs Ito, Ward-1, Ramanagar on 3 November, 2025

                      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                           'SMC' BENCH, BANGALORE

     BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
           SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                             ITA No.313/Bang/2025
                           Assessment Year: 2017-18

Channegowda Channankaiah,                   Vs.     The Income Tax Officer,
# 1957, Ward - 26, Magadi Road,                     Ward - 1,
Kempegowda Circle,                                  Ramanagar.
Ramanagar - 562 159.

PAN - AIOPC 3164 B
           APPELLANT                                         RESPONDENT

     Assessee by       :    Shri Ravindra M Hegde, CA
     Revenue by        :    Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate - Standing
                            Counsel for Revenue

               Date of hearing                      :     25.08.2025
               Date of Pronouncement                :     03.11.2025

                                  ORDER

    PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara vide order dated 03/05/2025 in DIN No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-25/1064608524(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.

2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO while sustaining the addition of ₹6,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the Act.

3. In the present case, the AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee deposited cash in his bank account in the year under consideration amounting to ₹10,34,075.00 only. The AO held that the assessee failed to justify the source of cash deposit to the extent of ₹6,00,000 out of the total cash deposits of ₹10,34,075. Accordingly, the AO treated the sum of ₹6,00,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the finding of the AO by observing that the assessee failed to justify the source of cash deposit in the bank with documentary evidence.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

6. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the profession of deed/document writer. According to the AO, the assessee received ₹6,00,000 as custodian in respect of two properties leased by the owners to third parties. The learned AR filed the lease agreements before us. It was further submitted that these agreements were not filed before the lower authorities. Accordingly, the learned AR prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law.

7. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. However, he left the issue to the discretion of the Bench, whether to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

.

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. From the discussion above, we note that the assessee has filed the lease agreements for the first time before us to justify that the cash deposited in the bank was received from the lessees on behalf of the property owners. The assessee claimed that he only acted as a custodian and subsequently transferred the money to the property owners. These facts were not verified by the lower authorities due to lack of supporting documents. Now, the learned AR has filed the lease agreements, which in our view are crucial to decide the issue. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence and set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A), and restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order pronounced in court on 3rd day of November, 2025 Sd/- Sd/-

    (SOUNDARA RAJAN K)                             (WASEEM AHMED)
       Judicial Member                              Accountant Member

Bangalore
Dated, 3rd November, 2025

/ vms /




.
                                                   ITA No.313/Bang/2025


                                Page 4 of 4

Copy to:

1.   The Applicant
2.   The Respondent
3.   The CIT
4.   The CIT(A)
5.   The DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6.   Guard file
                                                   By order

                                      Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore




.