ASHWINI SHAILESH JOSHI,PUNE V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

ITA 2126/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ashwini Shailesh Joshi, the appellant, contesting an addition of Rs. 8,20,550 to his income, which was alleged to be unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was initially confirmed by the CIT(A) and arose from an assessment order passed under sections 147 and 144 of the Act. The primary contention was that the payments made to Shripad Developers, alleged to be in cash, were actually made through bank channels. The ITAT, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the evidence, including a confirmation from Shripad Developers, decided to remand the matter back to the JAO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785665 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJITESH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: AAKASH JANGAM
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 68

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"एस एम सी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2126/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Ashwini Shailesh Joshi, Flat No. A-501, Sawitri Audumbar Appartment, DSK Chowk, Pune-411041 PAN-AIEPJ8240K Vs Assessment Unit, Pune Appellant Respondent Assessee by : CA Aakash Jangam Revenue by : Shri Ajitesh Meena, JCIT Date of hearing : 14.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 24.07.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 18.03.2024. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 8,20,550/- for the alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged cash payment given to Ms. Shripad Developers. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not made any cash payment to Ms. Shripad Developers and whatever the payments made to Shripad Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2126/PUN/2025 Developers are through Bank Channel. He also stated that the confirmation from Ms. Shripad Developers is placed on record which is admittedly not filed before the lower authorities. 4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs. 4,74,603/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 filed on 23.06.2018. Based on the information received by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) through INSIGHT Portal regarding goods purchases in cash at Rs. 8,20,550/- during the year under consideration, valid notice u/s 148 of the Act served upon the assessee. Ld. AO called for various information to which regular replies were filed regarding maintaining of various Bank Accounts and payments made for purchase of Flat from Shripad Developers. The issue in dispute is regarding the transaction of purchase of goods at Rs. 8,20,550/-. The assessee has stated that he gave cheques to Shripad Developers towards the additional work to be carried out on the Flat only mentioning the amount and those cheques have been given to the Vendors. It is also submitted that no cash payment was given to Ms. Shripad Developers. However since assessee could not satisfy the Ld. AO above payment of cheque of Rs. 8,20,550/-. Ld. AO concluded that the assessee had made payment in cash and made addition thereof and assessed the income at Rs. 12,95,153/- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2126/PUN/2025 6. I further observe that the assessee failed to get any relief from Ld. CIT(A). Before me Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly stated that the assessee had sufficient explanation for the source of funds given to Shripad Developers and also submitted that the payment for work carried out by vendors on the appellants request has been made through the blank cheques (no name but amount mentioned) given by the assessee to Shripad Developers. He also submitted that the alleged addition could not have been made u/s 68 of the Act. He also referred to the confirmation/letter given by Shripad Developers placed in the appeal set in which M/s. Shripad Developers has confirmed that no cash has been received from the assessee. 7. I observe that the assessee has furnished the details of various payments made to vendors namely Balaji Constructions, S.J. Industries as well as payment made to Sagar Pardeshi totaling to Rs. 56,05,050/- during the year 2017 and it is claimed that this payment includes the alleged sum of Rs. 8,20,550/- 8. Under these given facts and circumstances I find that the issue on merit deserves to be restored to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for carrying out denovo assessment proceedings after duly considering the documents furnished before this Tribunal and to decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.2126/PUN/2025 appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of October, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 30th October, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "