MAHESH DATTAGURU KUNTE,SINDHUDURG V. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

ITA 285/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Dattaguru Kunte, an advocate and consultant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) NFAC, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 14,46,277 to his income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The addition was initially made by the AO based on unexplained cash deposits. The assessee argued that these deposits were from legal fees received in cash, a common practice in rural areas. The ITAT admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including affidavits and client confirmations, and remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36201 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVIYOGI AMBADKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 250

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 AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.285/PUN/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mahesh Dattaguru Kunte, House No. 85, Sangirdewadi, Kudal, Sindhudurg-416520 Maharashtra PAN-BQLPK1938H Vs NFAC, Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Additional CIT Date of hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 26.03.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC dated 11.12.2024 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is arising out of Assessment Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 17.09.2021. 2. When the case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However an application dated 06.03.2025 has been filed on 10.03.2025 requesting for admission of additional evidence under rule 29 of the ITAT rules. Considering the facts of the case we proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 2 ITA No.285/PUN/2025 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits made by the Appellant/assessee, was the amounts handed over by his clients to defray legal expenses of the clients. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction of handing over cash by the clients and the subsequent deposit in bank, had taken place in a rural area where transactions happen predominantly in cash. 3. It is submitted that the Appellant has obtained confirmations from his clients and the appellant relies upon the same. 4. It is further submitted that the Appellant has collated his bank statements, evidencing the manner of cash deposits/withdrawal and the appellant relies upon the same 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeals. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee did not file any return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Information about cash deposit of Rs. 10,29,000/-, time deposit of Rs. 2,00,277/- and deposit of cash in other Bank at Rs. 2,17,000/- was received. Assessment proceedings were carried out. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was stated that assessee is an Advocate and Consultant and carries Legal Profession. Certain submissions were given to explain the source of cash/time deposit but Ld. AO was not satisfied and he made the addition of Rs. 14,46,277/- The assessee challenged the addition before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 5. Before us the assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith certain additional evidences to explain the source of cash deposit including the confirmation letters from three persons namely Vidyadhar Purushottam Apte, Shri Shripad Manohar Mondkar and Shri Vasant Dattatray Apte. These additional evidences are forming part of the Paper Book running into 18 pages. 3 ITA No.285/PUN/2025 6. We find that admission of these additional evidences is necessary for assessing the correct income of the assessee. We therefore admit the additional evidences and restore the issue raised on merits of the case relating to additions of Rs. 14,46,277/- to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo adjudication to be carried out after examining the additional evidence and granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 26th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 26th March, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / 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. "