HARISH CHANDIRAM NAVRANGANI,AURANGABAD V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 599/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Harish Chandiram Navrangani, who is engaged in the wholesale and retail business of FMCG products under the name M/s. Sairoop Agencies. The Income Tax Department initiated re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information from The Malkapur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited regarding a cash deposit of Rs.2,19,51,080 in the assessee's bank account. The Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment under section 144, adding the entire amount as income due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance as well. However, a subsequent bank certificate corrected the reported deposit amount to Rs.54,87,770, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779747 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH RUPAREL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.599/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Harish Chandiram Navrangani, Sairoop Agencies, Tilak Nagar, Sillod, Aurangabad – 431 122 Maharashtra PAN : ABVPN5804F Vs. CIT (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is against the order dated 19.12.2024 of CIT(A)/NFAC, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 28.12.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against the finding of ld.CIT(A) affirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.2,19,51,080/-. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order has been framed u/s.144 of the Act and the addition has been made on the basis of information received Appellant by : Shri Umesh Ruparel (virtual) Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 24.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.599/PUN/2025 Harish Chandiram Navrangani 2 from the bank namely The Malkapur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited about deposit of cash of Rs.2,19,51,080/- in the bank account of the assessee. Thereafter in the appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) due to non compliance appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a mistake on the part of the bank mentioning the wrong amount in the information provided to the Department about alleged cash deposit of Rs.2,19,61,080/- but subsequently the bank vide certificate dated 17.02.2025 placed in the paper book at page 30 has certified that the actual amount of cash deposit is Rs.54,87,770/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the source of cash deposit is from the business activity carried out by the assessee in name of M/s. Sairoop Agencies engaged in the business of wholesale and Retail business of FMCG (Fast moving consumer goods) products and that the assessee is also registered in the Goods and Service Tax Act and gross sales declared are at Rs.69,48,835/-. He therefore submitted that in the given case, the issues may please be restored to the file of ld.Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for carrying out proceedings afresh so that assessee can file all necessary details before him. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that bank certificate was not received till the date of passing of the impugned order and further raised no objection if the issues are restored to the file of ld. JAO. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and carrying on the wholesale and retail business of FMCG products under the sole proprietorship concern M/s. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.599/PUN/2025 Harish Chandiram Navrangani 3 Sairoop Agencies and has been subjected to the re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act on the basis of information received about cash deposit of Rs.2,19,51,080/- in the bank account of the assessee held with The Malkapur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited. Due to non compliance, ld. AO passed Best Judgment Assessment and made addition for the total amount of cash deposit and assessed income at Rs.2,19,51,080/-. Though the assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but again due to non compliance failed to succeed. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book running into 52 pages mainly drew our attention to the bank certificate dated 17.02.2025 issued by The Malkapur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited in which it is stated that actual amount of cash deposit is Rs.54,87,770/- and the bank has sent wrong information to the Income Tax Department about the cash deposit of Rs.2,19,51,080/- and this certificate forms part of the paper book placed at page 30 and the assessee has also filed the copy of bank statement contending that the source of cash deposit is cash sales made by the assessee in the regular course of business. 7. Under these gives facts and circumstances and considering the details filed by the assessee, we are of the view that assessee deserves to be given one more opportunity. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that in the course of set-aside proceedings Ld. JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submissions/evidences Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.599/PUN/2025 Harish Chandiram Navrangani 4 to be filed by the assessee shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 16th day of October, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 16th October, 2025. Satish 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, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "