आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:373)ी एस.एस. िव(cid:695)ने(cid:361) रिव, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं (cid:373)ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &

Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1643/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hirachand Rameshchand, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17B, Gandhi Road, Ward 1, Kumbakonam.

Mayiladuthurai 609 001, Tamil Nadu.

[PAN:AADPR2968R]

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Akshit A Jain, CA (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Addl./JCIT(A), Thane for the assessment year 2007-08.

2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 96 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

3. The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

4. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.10,08,400/- as unexplained cash credit under other sources on the ground that the closing debtors given by the assessee and the enquiry with the debtors are contradictory and in different names. By observing that the accounts are self generated accounts on Tally software did not have any kind of independent evidence of existence of such accounts, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act by noting that the assessee has introduced cash into his books by way of deposits in this account and immediately transferred these amounts to current account. The ld.

CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5. The ld. AR Shri Akshit A Jain, CA drew our attention to the second page of the assessment order and submits that the Assessing Officer made enquiries with the debtors Mr. K. Suguraman and Mr. T. Baskaran and noted that “they have stated that they have not obtained loan from him but they have obtained loan on behalf of others”. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the issue here is not about on whose behalf the loan was obtained, but, is about whether the loan was obtained or not and whether the repayment was made by the sundry debtors. He submits that the loan was obtained and repaid by the above stated debtors, which was duly verified by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, in fact, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any objection over repayment of sundry debtors.

6. With regard to the objection of the Assessing Officer that the accounts are self generated accounts, the ld. AR submits that the said computer print outs were taken from a software named Tally, the assessee maintains his books of accounts in the said software and the assessee does not maintain manual books of accounts, but, maintains his books of accounts electronically in Tally and the documents submitted to the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings were from books of accounts only.

7. With regard to the objection of the Assessing Officer that the cash was received from sundry debtors in April, 2006 and deposits were made into bank from 25.10.2006 and after