आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” (cid:14)ायपीठ चे(cid:19)ई म(cid:22)। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय tiी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं

माननीय tiी मनोज कु मार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद( के सम!।

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1238/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

अपीलाथ(cid:28)कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.AR (cid:31) थ(cid:28)कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the common order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [CIT(A)] dated 13-09-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by the Ld. AO u/s.153C of the Act on 31-03-2022. The only grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition u/s 69 for Rs.15 Lacs.

2. The Ld AR advanced arguments and submitted that impugned addition u/s 69 represent advance received through banking channels which could not be added u/s 69. This addition does not satisfy the ingredients of Sec.69 since this section is applicable for unexplained investments only. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, filed written submissions and submitted that the quoting of wrong section would not vitiate the addition made by Ld. AO as held in various judicial decisions. The copies of the same has been placed on record. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under.

3. From perusal of para-7.2 of the assessment order, it could be seen that Ld. AO has made impugned addition of Rs.15 Lacs u/s 69 by observing as under: -

7.2 There is a credit of Rs.15,00,000/- in assessee’s bank book which he claims to be “Loan received from Mr Sreejith still pending”. The assessee has not produced any proof in support of his claim such as confirmation from Mr. Sreejith, purpose of loans received. Therefore, in the absence of any evidences, the nature and source for the credit of Rs.15,00,000/- remains unexplained. Hence, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 in the books of the assessee added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s

271(1)© is initiated separately.

The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same.

4. Quite clearly, Ld. AO has made addition of credit receipt in bank account of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to adduce supporting documents. The amount thus received by the assessee has been treated as unexplained investment u/s 69. We are of the opinion that the provisions of Sec.69 are applicable only where the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. It is crystal clear that same is not the case here. The assessee has not made any investment but it has received certain advance in the bank account. In our considered opinion, invoking of wrong provisions of law would vitiate the impugned addition. Similar view has been expressed by us in assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13, ITA No.1235/Chny/2023 as under: -

5. The Ld. CIT-DR, in the written submissions, has referred to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of SVS Oil Mills vs. ACIT (113 Taxmann.com 388). In that case, the assessee was subjected to survey u/s 133A and excess stock was found. The Ld. AO held that excess stock was to be added as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69C. It was observed by Hon’ble Court as under: -

7. However, before parting with, we may observe that there is a