आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ (cid:1)यायपीठ, चे(cid:9)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:1)ी एबी टी. वक(cid:10), (cid:11)ाियक सद(cid:17) एव ं

(cid:1)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:9) के सम(cid:27)

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2118/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:14)रण वष(cid:14)/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohan, v. The ITO, 62/5, Thirumurugan Nagar, Ward-1(3), SS Nagar, 2^nd Street, Kongu Main Tirupur.

Road, Tirupur-641 607.

[PAN: AJLPM 0534 D (अपीलाथ(cid:22)/Appellant) ((cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:22) क(cid:26) ओर स / े Appellant by : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA (cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22) क(cid:26) ओर स े /Respondent by : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक(cid:26)तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026 घोषणाक(cid:26)तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदशे / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 13.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2017-18.

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the AO erred in making additions on issues which were not flagged by the CASS. In this respect, the Ld.AR, drew our attention to the first paragraph of the assessment order dated 26.12.2019, wherein the AO had acknowledged that the return of income (RoI) filed by the assessee [ITR filed on 16.03.2018 for AY 2017-18 declaring total income at ₹8,37,250/-] was selected for “limited scrutiny under CASS” to examine the “cash deposit during the year”. However, according to the Ld.AR, a perusal of the assessment order would reveal that the AO had made addition of ₹41,13,322/- [₹17,28,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and business income @8% on ₹2,98,16,525/- i.e. ₹23,85,322] as under:

3. According to the Ld.AR, the AO couldn’t have travelled beyond the issue [cash deposits] as per the binding Circular on the subject. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the AO erred in passing the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 and prayed for de-novo assessment by the AO since the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC).

4. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO and didn’t want us to interfere. However, she agreed that the AO couldn’t have gone beyond the issue which has been flagged by the CASS i.e. ‘cash deposits during the relevant assessment year’.

5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase & sale of garments and filed his ITR/RoI for AY 2017-18 on 16.03.2018 admitting total income at ₹8,37,250/-, which ITR was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposits during the year. The AO is noted to have asked for the details of the cash deposits in the following banks and noted the relevant facts as under:

6. The AO is noted to have asked the assessee to give details of the deposits made [nature and source of it] and has made the following observations as under:

It is seen from the details uploaded that the assessee has credited a sum of Rs. 4,41,87,196 in the ab