IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 577/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Chokkalingam Thangavel, ITO, Ward-1, Aathithapuram Street, Vellamadam Income Tax Office, No. 379, Post, Agasteeswaram, Kanyakumari, Vs. Kottar-Parvathipuram Road, Thamil Nadu- 629305 Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, PAN: AJUPC7902Q Tamil Nadu-629001.

Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue / Respondent by : Dr. M. Sri Shanmuga Priya, JCIT Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'CIT(A)'] dated 20.01.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The impugned order is illegal, opposed to the facts, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed.

2. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not deciding each ground of appeal with reference to the bank account statements available with the assessing officer.

3. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in reopening the assessment under section 148 on the basis of order under section 148A(d) dated 06.04.2022 passed with the approval of the PCIT, Madurai whereas the sanction was to be obtained from the PCCIT, as three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year.

3.1 The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the proviso to section 151 was inserted by Finance Act, 2023 and therefore not applicable as on

06.04.2022

4. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in adding Rs.87,80,658/- towards business income without noticing that the assessee was an agent for Hinduja Finance for distribution of vehicle loans

4.1 The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the deposits through banking channels by RTGS were received from Hinduja Finance and distributed in cash after withdrawals by cash to the customers.

5. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in adding Rs.52,24,970/- under section 69A towards unexplained money without noticing that the cash deposits represented the collections from the customers, who had taken vehicle loans and transferred to Hinduja Finance through banking channels”

2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income under section 139 of the Act for the reason that his income was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. The assessee is an agent of Hinduja Finance for distribution of vehicle loans to the customers in need of finance for purchase of vehicle. The Assessing Officer (AO) received an information that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 52,24,970/-. and has also withdrawn cash to the tune of Rs. 3,23,50,756/- in ICICI Bank Ltd. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income, the AO issued a show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act.

Subsequently the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) dated 06.04.2022 after taking prior approval of PCIT, Madurai-1 and issued a notice under section 148 on 07.04.2022. The assessee filed return in response to notice under section 148 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,84,500/-. Since the assessee did not file any further response with regard to the deposit and withdrawal of cash, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act assessing the income at Rs. 1,44,90,260/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not file any response to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A