Anumandan Perumal Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
SEO Title: ITAT Restores Section 69A Addition for Fresh Adjudication After Company Confirmation
SEO Description: ITAT restores the Section 69A addition of Rs.4.17 crore to the AO after company confirmation supported the assessee’s explanation.
Shri Anumandan Perumal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC
Summary: The appeal was filed by Shri Anumandan Perumal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 23.04.2026. The supplied material states that the appeal relates to A.Y. 2020-21. It further records that the assessee, an individual, had challenged an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 read with 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee could not comply with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee’s principal contention concerned the addition of Rs.4,17,68,156/- under Section 69A in respect of transactions appearing in bank accounts standing in his name. The assessee explained that the accounts had been opened for the business purposes of M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited, where he was employed as a Quarry Manager, and that the transactions belonged to the company. The Ld. AR specifically pointed out that the AO had issued a notice under Section 133(6) to the company and that the company had categorically confirmed that the bank-account transactions pertained to it. The assessee nevertheless conceded that he could not effectively prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and sought another opportunity to substantiate his claim before the AO. The Ld. DR raised no serious objection to restoration of the matter.
The Tribunal perused the confirmation reproduced in the assessment order, wherein M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited confirmed the assessee’s employment and stated that the bank transactions in his name pertained to the company for FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21), pursuant to its stated practice of opening accounts in the names of Quarry Managers for quarry administration. The Tribunal found that prima facie material existed supporting the assessee’s explanation, but also noted that the relevant facts and evidence had not been examined in detail by the appellate authority because the assessee could not effectively pursue the appellate proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal therefore set aside the impugned order on the issue and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the assessee’s claim afresh in accordance with law and afford adequate opportunity of being heard before passing a fresh order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 21st August, 2026.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
- None were discussed or relied upon in the supplied material.
****
Hyderabad ITAT Remands ₹4.17 Crore Section 69A Addition: Employer Admitted Employee’s Bank Account Was Used for Company’s Business Transactions
In Anumandan Perumal v. ITO, ITA No. 1740/Hyd/2026 (AY 2020-21), order dated 21.08.2026, the Hyderabad ITAT dealt with an addition of ₹4,17,68,156 under Section 69A arising from transactions appearing in bank accounts standing in the assessee’s name. The assessee contended that he was merely an employee/quarry manager of Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and that the accounts were opened and operated for the company’s business purposes.
Significantly, in response to a Section 133(6) notice issued by the AO, the company itself confirmed that the assessee was its Quarry Manager and categorically stated that all transactions in the bank accounts standing in his name belonged to the company. It further explained that, as a matter of company policy, bank accounts were opened in the names of respective quarry managers and funds were transferred to those accounts for operational purposes.
The ITAT observed that this confirmation constituted prima facie material supporting the assessee’s explanation that the bank accounts were being used for the company’s business. However, since the assessee had not effectively prosecuted the proceedings before the CIT(A), the relevant facts and supporting evidence had not been examined in detail.
Considering the company’s categorical admission that the transactions were its own, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the entire issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing him to examine the assessee’s claim and provide adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal is filed by Shri Anumandan Perumal (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 23.04.2026 for the A.Y. 2020-21.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.
2. The ld. CIT(A) without granting sufficient opportunity has dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has made submissions only with respect to the legal ground of issuing notice by the AO u/s 148 of the Act and has requested for additional time to file submissions on merits.
3. Without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.4,17,68,156 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
4. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant was carrying out transactions through his bank account in the capacity of an employee (quarry manager) on behalf of M/s. Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd., and addition could not have been made in his hands.
5. The authorities below failed to appreciate the confirmation letter issued by M/s. Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd., wherein they have confirmed the employment of the appellant with them and that the transactions carried in his bank account pertains to the company.
(Tax Effect: Rs.3,25,79,163)
6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under sections 147 read with 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2021-22 dated 30.03.2025. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the only issue arising for consideration is with regard to the addition of Rs. 4,17,68,156/- made by the AO under section 69A of the Act. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed transactions aggregating to Rs. 4,17,68,156/- in the bank accounts standing in the name of the assessee. The assessee explained before the AO that the said bank accounts were opened in his name only for the business purposes of M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited, where the assessee was working as an employee, and that all the transactions reflected therein belonged to the said company. Inviting our attention to para no. 6 of the assessment order, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO himself had issued a notice under section 133(6) of the Act to M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited, and in response thereto the company categorically accepted that all the transactions in the said bank accounts pertained to the company. It was submitted that despite such categorical confirmation by the company, the AO proceeded to make the addition in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR, however, fairly conceded that the assessee could not effectively prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing all the relevant evidence before the AO.
5. The Ld. DR fairly submitted that he has no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through para no. 6 of the assessment order, wherein the AO has reproduced the confirmation received from M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited, which is to the following effect:
“6. Further in response to notice u/s 133(6) issued to M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited (PAN:AAACY1091N) for the AY 2020-21. the following reply was furnished.
Sub: Confirmation of Employment and Bank Transactions for Mr. Anumandan Perumal (PAN: CSGPP0452D) for FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21).
We hereby confirm that Mr. Anumandan Perumal (PAN: CSGPP0452D), is employed tvithus as the Quarry Manager of the Granite Quarry located at S.no. 584/1, Peddapur Village, Atmakur mandal, Hanumakonda District.
Regarding the bank transactions from the account opened in the name of Mr. Anumandan Perumal (PAN: CSGPP0452D), we clarify that all these transactions pertain to our company Yak Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd for the FY 2019-20 (AY 2020- 21).
It is our company policy to open bank accounts in the name of respective Quarry Managers for the administration of the quarry. The funds necessary for operational purposes are transferred to these accounts, with authorisation granted to the Quarry Managers for their use.”
7. On a perusal of the above, we find that the AO has recorded that a notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited and that, in response thereto, the company accepted that the transactions appearing in the bank accounts standing in the name of the assessee were related to the company. Thus, prima facie, there exists material on record supporting the explanation of the assessee that the impugned bank accounts were being operated for the business purposes of the company. However, since the assessee could not effectively pursue the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the relevant facts and evidences have not been examined in detail by the appellate authority. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the categorical stand taken by M/s. Yak Granite Industries Private Limited before the AO accepting
the transactions in the bank accounts as its own, and the fair submission made by the Ld. AR that the assessee is willing to produce all the relevant evidence in support of his claim, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall examine the claim of the assessee afresh in accordance with law. Needless to observe, the AO shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a fresh order.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st August, 2026.
