ACIT Vs Antonysamy Antonyxavier (ITAT Chennai)
Possession ≠ Ownership: Carrier Is Not Owner: Cash Seizure Can’t Mean 69A Addition-ITAT Rejects 69A on School Fee Cash
In ACIT, Vs. Antonysamy Antonyxavier, ITA No.2235/Chny/2024, AY 2019-20, order dated 31.12.2025, Chennai ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal & upheld deletion of addition of ₹68.14 lakh u/s 69A. Cash was seized during election surveillance from a car driven by Assessee, who was Correspondent of St. Assisi Matric Hr. Sec. School. AO treated seized cash as unexplained money in Assessee’s hands on ground that source was not proved & daily cash balance of school was allegedly low.
Tribunal noted that from inception Assessee consistently explained that cash represented school fee collections handed over by Financial Administrator of Leo Charitable Trust running the school. Statements recorded u/s 131 from both Assessee & Financial Administrator clearly established that cash comprised accumulated school fees, NEET coaching fees & van fees for period 01.02.2019 to 11.03.2019. Tribunal held that AO failed to appreciate distinction between possession & ownership. Relying on CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem (88 Taxman 323)(Ker.), Tribunal held that a mere carrier of cash cannot be taxed as owner. Once source stood explained, addition u/s 69A in hands of Assessee was unsustainable. Deletion by CIT(A) was therefore confirmed & Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
