BHARAT MOHANLAL SOLANKI ,PUNE V. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

ITA 898/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bharat Mohanlal Solanki, the appellant, contesting an addition of Rs.31,13,500 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The addition was made under section 69A read with Rule 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The Assessing Officer initially made this addition following a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted the prolonged delay in the CIT(A)'s decision and the assessee's newly available information to explain the source of the cash deposit, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669469 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. SADANANDA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.898/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bharat Mohanlal Solanki Sr. No. 25/A/B, Dhanakwade Patil Town Ship, C Wing, Flat No. 701, Dhanakwadi, Pune 411043, Maharashtra PAN: AOUPS1260C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 10.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 20.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.31,13,500/- u/s.69A r.w. Rule 115BBE of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18 in respect of cash deposit in the bank account. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the orders of the Assessing Officer as well the ld.CIT(A) are exparte and due to reasons beyond control assessee failed to furnish the requisite details. It is also submitted that now Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue by : Shri S.Sadananda Singh, JCIT Date of hearing : 19.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.06.2025 ITA No.898/PUN/2025 Bharat Mohanlal Solanki 2 the assessee possess all the information to explain the source of alleged cash deposit along with bank statement and the nature and source of cash deposit. He therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Ld. Departmental Representation raised no objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld. JAO. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Impugned addition of Rs.31,13,500/- for unexplained cash deposit has been made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee. Assessee has filed regular return of income electronically on 30.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.13,80,150/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings which have been carried out after validly serving statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) of the Act assessee failed to respond on the given dates of hearing. Ld. Assessing Officer passed the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.31,13,500/-. In the appeal filed before ld.CIT(A), assessee stated in the statement of facts that the source of the alleged cash deposit is from business receipts, accumulated savings, balance cash remained in hand from time to time and cash withdrawals from the bank. However, after filing of the appeal, assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing. Last notice was given to the assessee on 22.11.2019 but ld.CIT(A) has framed the appeal order on 10.03.2025 which is almost after six years. Considering these facts and prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and there being no objection raised by ld. Departmental Representative, I in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it appropriate to ITA No.898/PUN/2025 Bharat Mohanlal Solanki 3 restore the issues raised on merit to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and after considering the submissions of the assessee shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on this 25th day of June, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 25th June, 2025. Satish ITA No.898/PUN/2025 Bharat Mohanlal Solanki 4 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "