BALASAHEB KUSHABA NIVANGUNE,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (2), PUNE

ITA 2791/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Balasaheb Kushaba Ninvangune, the appellant, who contested additions made to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ITO, Ward-6(2), Pune. The additions included Rs.12,60,000 for unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and Rs.5,12,181 for unexplained investments in gold jewellery. The appellant argued that these were part of business receipts and savings, respectively. The CIT(A)/NFAC had confirmed these additions due to the appellant's non-compliance in providing substantiating documents. The Tribunal, considering the substantial documentation provided during the appeal and the non-compliance at earlier stages, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396345 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVIYOGI AMBADKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JHA
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence; Revised return; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2791/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Balasaheb Kushaba Ninvangune, S. No.41, Plot No.41, Jadhav Nagar, Vadagaon Budruk, Pune- 411041. PAN : AFMPN4866Q Vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 28.10.2024 which is arising out of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2017-18 framed on 19.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-6(2), Pune. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.12,69,000/- on account of money deposited in cash in bank account during Assessee by : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue by : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date of hearing : 11.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2025 ITA No.2791/PUN/2024 2 demonetization period without appreciating that this amount also was part of the business receipt and it was not unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the IT Act. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,12,181/- without appreciating that the assessee had acquired gold jewellery out of his savings from past earnings, agricultural income and current year's business income and the addition was not justified. 3. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 4. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in course of the appeal proceedings. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and income for A.Y. 2017-18 declared at Rs.,903,750/-. Subsequently, revised return was also filed on 14.04.2017. Thereafter, the case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to make any compliance before Ld. Assessing Officer, best judgement assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act and income assessed at Rs.27,34,815/-. 4. Aggrieved with above, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but partly succeeded. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal against the addition confirmed by Ld. ITA No.2791/PUN/2024 3 CIT(A)/NFAC at Rs.12,60,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period and unexplained investment in gold jewellery of Rs.5,12,181/-. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to certain case laws and paper book running into 66 pages explaining the source of alleged cash deposit and also stating that the gold jewellery was purchased by payment through banking channel. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR stated that the assessee failed to make any submission before both the lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved with following findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirming the addition of Rs.12,60,000/- and Rs.5,12,181/- u/s 69A of the Act :- “5.2.2 With regard to the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2, the appellant submitted that the cash deposits in its account of Rs.12,60,000/- during demonetization period and purchase of jewellery of Rs.5,34,661/- in cash was sourced out of his regular business and earlier earnings and savings. The appellant was provided with the ample opportunities to substantiate its claim through evidences during the assessment proceedings though he opted to remain non-compliant to the notices issued by the AO. Before the undersigned too, the appellant didn't furnish any documentary evidence that may substantiate the cash deposits in its account during demonetization period and cash payment made for purchasing jewellery. Hence, the source of the cash deposits in the account of the appellant during demonetization period and cash payment made for purchasing jewellery remain unexplained during the appellate proceedings also. ITA No.2791/PUN/2024 4 Accordingly, it is clear that the AO rightly made additions of Rs.12,60,000/- on account of unexplained money and Rs.5.12.181/- on account of unexplained investment. In view of the failure of the appellant in substantiating the above mentioned transactions, grounds of appeal No.1 & 2 presented by the appellant are dismissed.” 8. From the perusal of above findings of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we notice that the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the explanation about the source of alleged cash deposit during the demonetization period and source of investments in purchase of gold jewellery. Since the assessee has filed the details before us in the paper book running into 66 pages, considering the fact that the order of Assessing Officer has been framed u/s 144 of the Act on account of non-appearance by the assessee we therefore, in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to remit both the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication for which reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee to furnish all the relevant details as has been filed before this Tribunal in the paper book. The assessee can also submit other details, if needed necessary, in support of grounds of appeal. The assessee should avoid taking unnecessary adjournment ITA No.2791/PUN/2024 5 unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30th May, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "