MILIND AMRUT PATIL,VASAI V. ITO WARD 4(1), THANE, THANE

ITA 5421/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Milind Amrut Patil, the appellant, who challenged an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 32,22,775 found in the assessee's account, which was added to his income by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed that he was merely a 'conduit' for money transfer through M-Pesa and failed to provide any documentary evidence to support this claim during the appeals process. The Tribunal, after hearing the Departmental Representative and reviewing the materials on record, decided to dismiss the appeal due to the lack of substantive evidence from the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782631 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH S. SHINGATE

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5421/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Milind Amrut Patil AT-Ambode PO- Saiwant, Tal-vasai. Vasai-Virar 401303. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(1) Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Thane PAN/GIR No. AACTP1898B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Mahesh S. Shingate Date of Hearing 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 04.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee either physically or virtually when the case was called repeatedly, however an application for seeking adjournment has been received through e-mail. After going through the contents of the application I find that no details have been mentioned in the same and only Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.5421/Mum/2025 Milind Amrut Patil, Mumbai. a general statement for filing paper book has been mentioned. No reasons have been mentioned by the assessee as to why the documents if any were not filed along with the appeal at the time of instituting the appeal before the Tribunal. I also noticed that the present appeal was filed on 29.08.2025 and approximately two months have already been passed but no efforts have been made by the assessee to place on record any documents. Since adjournment is not the right of the litigant therefore in my view the said application filed in a just a casual and cavalier manner to delay the judicial proceedings, therefore the same stands dismissed. 3. Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments, therefore I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte. 4. I have heard Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records I noticed that the addition in this case was made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act and to counter the said additions, although assessee had filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the same was dismissed. Since it was assesse’s onus to explain the nature and source of any sum credited in his books of account or found in his position that is not accounted for, but in this regard assessee has failed to discharge its onus. The only claim of the assessee is that he was acting as a “conduit” for money transfer through M.Pesa but no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.5421/Mum/2025 Milind Amrut Patil, Mumbai. assessee before any of the revenue authorities to substantiate the specific transactions for the entire unexplained amount. 5. Since the assessee failed to establish the source of deposit amount to the explain of Rs. 32,22,775/- by producing relevant documentary evidence therefore cash deposit of Rs. 32,22,775/- was rightly treated by the revenue authorities as unexplained. 6. No new facts or circumstances have been placed on record before me in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the grounds raised and by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2025 Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 31/10/2025 KRK, PS Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.5421/Mum/2025 Milind Amrut Patil, Mumbai. आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु\u0003बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "