ANWAR ISMAIL AGWAN ,MUMBAI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2518/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anwar Ismail Agwan, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the addition of Rs.15,15,000 to his income for the assessment year 2012-13 under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer based on unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee contended that these deposits were from cash withdrawals previously made, a claim partially accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the examination of bank statements and the assessee's failure to file a return or respond to notices during the assessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774129 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAGIRATH RAMAWAT
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN VAJANI; VIRTUALLY
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2518/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Anwar Ismail Agwan, Noor Mohammad Chawl, Nr. Ajit Galss Oshiwara, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai - 400102 PAN : ACWPA3632N ............... Appellant v/s ITO, Ward-24(1)(2) Mumbai ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ketan Vajani, CA (virtually) Revenue by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 26/08/2025 Date of Order - 11/09/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 25/02/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the addition made under section 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited in the bank account. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and was dealing in empty glass bottles. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not file his income tax return. On the basis of the information available on NMS Cycle, it was observed that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.10,10,000/- in his bank account and Rs.5,40,000/- with the banking company. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.09.2019 and proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. However, the assessee did not respond to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee also did not respond to the statutory notices and the show cause notice issued during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to complete the assessment on a best judgment basis as per the data available on record. During the assessment proceedings, notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Union Bank of India, Oshiwara Branch, Mumbai. However, no reply was received from the bank by the AO. Accordingly, vide order dated 20.12.2019 passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, the AO made an addition of Rs.15,15,000/- under section 69A of the Act. 4. During the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the cash was deposited in the bank account out of cash withdrawals. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO on the basis that from 12.08.2011 till 27.09.2011, the assessee withdrew money continuously from its bank account maintained with Union Bank of India without any basis, as the money from earlier cash withdrawals was already Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) 3 lying with the assessee. Thus, the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposits made in his bank account. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that for the year under consideration, the assessee did not file his return of income. Furthermore, the statutory notices issued during the assessment proceedings were also not complied with by the assessee. As on the basis of the information received by the AO that the assessee deposited cash to the tune of Rs.10,10,000/- in his bank account and Rs.5,40,000/- with the banking company, re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. Since the assessee did not file any reply during the assessment proceedings, the AO made the addition of the entire sum of Rs.15,15,000/- under section 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained money. The assessee’s plea before the learned CIT(A) that cash deposited during the year under consideration was from the cash withdrawal from the bank account was rejected by the learned CIT(A). 6. In the appeal before us, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), reiterating submissions made by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account was out of cash withdrawn by the assessee from its bank account maintained with Union Bank of India. In this regard, the learned AR referred to the bank statement, which forms part of the paper book, from pages 2-5. Justifying the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) 4 availability of cash for each deposit in the bank account, the learned AR submitted the following submission: - 7. Therefore, it was submitted that the cash was deposited out of cash withdrawn on previous occasions, and the assessee had a sufficient cash balance for each deposit. However, from the perusal of the aforesaid details, we find that in respect of cash of Rs.1 lakh deposited on 03.11.2011, the cash balance available with the assessee was only to the tune of Rs.82,600/-. Therefore, there was a negative cash balance of Rs.17,400/-. As per the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5 assessee, he has offered income from the transportation business of Rs . 1,80,000/- under section 44AE of the Act, and therefore, there was no negative cash balance in the case of the assessee. However, as is evident from the record during the year under consideration, the assessee did not file his return of income, and therefore, the claim now made before us that income from the transportation business of Rs.1,80,000/- was offered under section 44AE of the Act is unsubstantiated. Hence, we find that for the deposit of Rs.10,10,000/- by the assessee in its bank account maintained with Union Bank of India, there was a shortfall only to an extent of Rs.17,400/-, and the addition is directed to be sustained only to that extent, as in respect of the remaining cash deposited in bank account, the assessee has provided the necessary details which shows the availability of cash which was withdrawn from the bank account for subsequent deposit. 8. As regards the claim of the AO that the assessee had deposited Rs.5,40,000/- in the banking company, the assessee submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the name of the banking company is not mentioned in the assessment order. Furthermore, the assessee denied making any such deposit in a banking company and consistently claimed that the cash was deposited only into his bank account, which was maintained with the Union Bank of India. Even before us, the learned AR made similar submissions and denied any deposits in any banking company. In the absence of any iota of evidence in support of the contention that the assessee had deposited Rs.5,40,000/- in the banking company, we do not find any merit in the addition of the aforesaid sum made by the AO. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2518/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) 6 9. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/09/2025 Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 11/09/2025 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "