NITINKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA KACHARIA,MUMBAI V. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8597/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia, an individual deriving salary income as a Director of M/s Anuj Electricals Pvt. Ltd., who faced scrutiny following a search action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Polycab India Ltd. The AO observed substantial cash deposits in Kacharia's accounts for the assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24, which he could not satisfactorily explain. The CIT(A) partially relieved Kacharia by accepting some of his explanations but sustained significant additions. The Tribunal, however, found the CIT(A)'s conclusions unsupported by sufficient evidence, leading to the setting aside of the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841802 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Suthakar Selvaraj vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JAIN; KHUSHALI DESAI
• Keywords: Set aside; Salary income; Income from undisclosed sources; Gift
• Section: 147; 143(3); 132; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2023-24 Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia, Unit No. 1811 One Lodha Place Commercial, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, S.O. Delisle Road, S.O., Mumbai-400013. Vs. DCIT-Central Circle-5(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAQPK 8827 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prateek Jain & Ms. Khushali Desai Revenue by : Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 53, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2022-23 and 2023-24 respectively. Printed from counselvise.com 2. As common issue therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that individual deriving salary Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Following a search action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in the case of M/s Polycab India Ltd., the Assessee was also covered. action, assessments the case of the assessee for assessment year 24. 3.1 The Assessing Officer (“AO”) observed cash deposits of ₹31,33,900/- for A.Y. 2022 During the course of cash deposit was explained as out of accumulated savings savings, gifts, and re COVID-19 pandemic for medical contingencies. But the Assessing Officer summarily rejected the submission of assessee and concluded that assessee failed to explain satisfactorily as how much year-wise savings was done by the assessee and how much gift was received from particular relative. 4. On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), source of the cash deposits as earlier cash withdrawal Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 As common issue in dispute is involved in both these , same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. facts of the case are that the Assessee is an individual deriving salary income as a Director of M/s Anuj Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Following a search action under Section 132 of tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in the case of M/s Polycab India Ltd., the Assessee was also covered. Pursuant to the search u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act the case of the assessee for assessment years 2022 The Assessing Officer (“AO”) observed cash deposits of for A.Y. 2022-23 and ₹15,59,391/- for A.Y. 2023 During the course of assessment proceedings, the source of such cash deposit was explained as out of accumulated savings savings, gifts, and re-deposits of prior withdrawals made during the 19 pandemic for medical contingencies. But the Assessing y rejected the submission of assessee and concluded that assessee failed to explain satisfactorily as how much wise savings was done by the assessee and how much gift was received from particular relative. On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained source of the cash deposits as earlier cash withdrawal Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 2 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 in dispute is involved in both these appeals, , same were heard together and disposed off by way of this the Assessee is an income as a Director of M/s Anuj Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Following a search action under Section 132 of tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in the case of M/s Polycab Pursuant to the search 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act were passed in 2022-23 and 2023- The Assessing Officer (“AO”) observed cash deposits of for A.Y. 2023-24. assessment proceedings, the source of such cash deposit was explained as out of accumulated savings family deposits of prior withdrawals made during the 19 pandemic for medical contingencies. But the Assessing y rejected the submission of assessee and concluded that assessee failed to explain satisfactorily as how much wise savings was done by the assessee and how much gift was the assessee explained source of the cash deposits as earlier cash withdrawals and Printed from counselvise.com accumulated saving made by the assessee and his family members including his son along with certain gifts received on various occasions such as birthday, anniversary etc. Th explained that he was showing income of more than Rs.50,00,000/ in last five years. The assessee submitted that in assessment year 2018-19 income of Rs.2,54,40,525/ 2020 income of Rs.94,56,130/ income of Rs.96,58,514/ of Rs. 1,67,58,530/- said contentions of the assessee 4.1 Further, it was years i.e. financial year 2019 assessee and his son Shri Anuj Kacharia had made cash withdrawal aggregating to Rs.26,80,600/ uncertainty of Covid- emergency in the family. The assessee provided year the cash withdrawal by the assessee and his son. Accordingly, it was submitted that at the beginning of the assessment year under consideration it had sufficient excess balance available with him to deposit same in the bank account. It was submitted in the year under consideration that withdrawal of Rs.10,94,000/ submitted that considering opening cash balance of Rs.34,96,600/ comprising of Rs.10,00,000/ Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 accumulated saving made by the assessee and his family members including his son along with certain gifts received on various occasions such as birthday, anniversary etc. The assessee also explained that he was showing income of more than Rs.50,00,000/ in last five years. The assessee submitted that in assessment year 19 income of Rs.2,54,40,525/-, in assessment year 2019 2020 income of Rs.94,56,130/-, in assessment yea Rs.96,58,514/-, and in assessment year 2021 was reported under the income tax return but of the assessee was rejected by the AO it was submitted by the assessee that in last i.e. financial year 2019-2020 and financial year 2020 assessee and his son Shri Anuj Kacharia had made cash withdrawal aggregating to Rs.26,80,600/- due to ongoing -19 prevailing at the time to meet any medical ncy in the family. The assessee provided year the cash withdrawal by the assessee and his son. Accordingly, it was submitted that at the beginning of the assessment year under had sufficient excess balance available with him to deposit same in the bank account. It was submitted in the year under consideration that the assessee and his son has made cash withdrawal of Rs.10,94,000/- from the same bank account. It was t considering opening cash balance of Rs.34,96,600/ comprising of Rs.10,00,000/- past savings and Rs.2 Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 3 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 accumulated saving made by the assessee and his family members including his son along with certain gifts received on various e assessee also explained that he was showing income of more than Rs.50,00,000/- in last five years. The assessee submitted that in assessment year , in assessment year 2019- , in assessment year 2020-21 in assessment year 2021-22 income was reported under the income tax return but by the AO. that in last two financial year 2020-21, the assessee and his son Shri Anuj Kacharia had made cash due to ongoing to meet any medical ncy in the family. The assessee provided year-wise details of the cash withdrawal by the assessee and his son. Accordingly, it was submitted that at the beginning of the assessment year under had sufficient excess balance available with him to deposit same in the bank account. It was submitted in the year the assessee and his son has made cash from the same bank account. It was t considering opening cash balance of Rs.34,96,600/- past savings and Rs.24,49,600/- Printed from counselvise.com bank withdrawal made in the last two years, c assessee as on first day of the year along with current year’s withdrawal, the assessee had sufficient cash balance with him to deposit the same into the bank account. The assessee filed a detailed chart of the deposit consideration for assessee as well as his son deposit of Rs.15,59,931/ assessee explained under consideration along with cash withdrawal earlier year, source of the cash deposit amounting to Rs.15,59,391/- stands 4.2 But the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee allowed relief to the extent of Rs.7,34,000/ as cash deposit out of consideration and sustained addition to the extent of Rs.23,99,900/-. Similarly, in assessment year 2023 CIT(A) allowed relief of Rs.90,000/ addition of Rs.14,69,939/ “14.4 It is submitted by the assessee that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made cash withdrawals of Rs.7,20,000/ which the assessee re year relevant to A.Y. 2023 statement of Bank of Baroda and Bank of India of the assessee produced during the appellate proceedings, it is found that only Rs.90,000/- of actual cash withdrawals are verifiable from both banks of the assessee as detailed below: Date Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 wal made in the last two years, cash available with the assessee as on first day of the year along with current year’s the assessee had sufficient cash balance with him to deposit the same into the bank account. The assessee filed a detailed chart of the deposits and withdrawals for the year under consideration for assessee as well as his son. Regarding the cash f Rs.15,59,931/- in assessment year 2023 assessee explained that cash withdrawal made during the year under consideration along with cash withdrawal and saving of the ource of the cash deposit amounting to stands explained. But the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee allowed relief to the extent of Rs.7,34,000/ cash deposit out of withdrawals made in the year under consideration and sustained addition to the extent of . Similarly, in assessment year 2023 CIT(A) allowed relief of Rs.90,000/- and sustained the balance addition of Rs.14,69,939/- observing as under: 14.4 It is submitted by the assessee that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made cash withdrawals of Rs.7,20,000/- and were claimed to be available as cash on hand which the assessee re-deposited as cash bank deposits during the levant to A.Y. 2023-24. However, on verification of the statement of Bank of Baroda and Bank of India of the assessee produced during the appellate proceedings, it is found that only of actual cash withdrawals are verifiable from both the assessee as detailed below: Bank Name Amount Remarks Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 4 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 ash available with the assessee as on first day of the year along with current year’s the assessee had sufficient cash balance with him to deposit the same into the bank account. The assessee filed a for the year under egarding the cash in assessment year 2023-24, again the cash withdrawal made during the year and saving of the ource of the cash deposit amounting to But the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee allowed relief to the extent of Rs.7,34,000/- in AY 2022-23 made in the year under consideration and sustained addition to the extent of . Similarly, in assessment year 2023-24 also the Ld. and sustained the balance 14.4 It is submitted by the assessee that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made cash withdrawals of and were claimed to be available as cash on hand deposited as cash bank deposits during the 24. However, on verification of the statement of Bank of Baroda and Bank of India of the assessee produced during the appellate proceedings, it is found that only of actual cash withdrawals are verifiable from both Remarks Printed from counselvise.com 11.4.2022 Bank of India 02.05.2022 Bank of India 02.06.2022 Bank of India 14.5 It is, however, noted that the assessee withdrawals of Rs.7,20,000/ observed that the alleged additional withdrawals of Rs.6,30,000/ on various occasions from Bank of India till the date of cash deposit are not reflected in the ba Accordingly, the claim of total cash withdrawals of Rs.7,20,000/ not fully verifiable, and only Rs.90,000/ cash withdrawals available for redeposit. Hence, the contention of the assessee that the e for redeposit is not sustainable. It is also clarified that cash withdrawals made by the assessee's son cannot be linked to the assessee's deposits. Accordingly, only cash deposits to the extent of Rs.90,000/- deposits of Rs. 14,69,391/ unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income addition of Rs. 14,69,391/ the assessee get Accordingly, grounds of the appeal Partly allowed. 4.3 The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 52. 5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. whether the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the \"nexus\" between past withdrawals and subsequent deposits. year 2022-23, the addition of Rs.31,33,900/ for want of source of cash deposits / has already allowed relief of Rs.7,34,000/ of Rs.23,99,000/-. Similarly, in assessment year 202 Assessing Officer made addition for the cash deposit amounting to Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 Bank of India 30,000 Self-withdrawal Bank of India 30,000 Self-withdrawal Bank of India 30,000 Self-withdrawal 14.5 It is, however, noted that the assessee had claimed total cash withdrawals of Rs.7,20,000/- from both banks. On verification, it is observed that the alleged additional withdrawals of Rs.6,30,000/ on various occasions from Bank of India till the date of cash deposit are not reflected in the bank statements of the assessee. Accordingly, the claim of total cash withdrawals of Rs.7,20,000/ not fully verifiable, and only Rs.90,000/- is accepted as genuine cash withdrawals available for redeposit. Hence, the contention of the assessee that the entire Rs.7,20,000/- was available as cash for redeposit is not sustainable. It is also clarified that cash withdrawals made by the assessee's son cannot be linked to the assessee's deposits. Accordingly, only cash deposits to the extent of are treated as explained, and the remaining cash deposits of Rs. 14,69,391/- (Rs.15,59,391 Rs.90,000) sustained as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, addition of Rs. 14,69,391/- u/s 69 A of the IT Act is confirmed and the assessee gets partial relief of Rs.90,000/- Accordingly, grounds of the appeal Partly allowed.” The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The core controversy lies in whether the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the \"nexus\" between past withdrawals and subsequent deposits. 23, the addition of Rs.31,33,900/- was made by the AO source of cash deposits /-, out of which, has already allowed relief of Rs.7,34,000/- leaving balance addition . Similarly, in assessment year 202 Assessing Officer made addition for the cash deposit amounting to Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 5 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 withdrawal withdrawal withdrawal had claimed total cash from both banks. On verification, it is observed that the alleged additional withdrawals of Rs.6,30,000/- on various occasions from Bank of India till the date of cash deposit nk statements of the assessee. Accordingly, the claim of total cash withdrawals of Rs.7,20,000/- is is accepted as genuine cash withdrawals available for redeposit. Hence, the contention of was available as cash for redeposit is not sustainable. It is also clarified that cash withdrawals made by the assessee's son cannot be linked to the assessee's deposits. Accordingly, only cash deposits to the extent of treated as explained, and the remaining cash (Rs.15,59,391 Rs.90,000) sustained as tax Act, 1961. Thus, u/s 69 A of the IT Act is confirmed and The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused The core controversy lies in whether the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the \"nexus\" between past withdrawals and subsequent deposits. In assessment made by the AO which, the Ld. CIT(A) leaving balance addition . Similarly, in assessment year 2023-24, the Assessing Officer made addition for the cash deposit amounting to Printed from counselvise.com Rs.1,55,939/- out of which the Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the amount of Rs.90,000/ 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has accepted of withdrawal made in the current years, b withdrawal made by the assessee in financial year 2019 financial year 2020- consideration. The assessee has explained sa more than salary income of Rs.2,54, 2018-19; Rs.94,56,130/ Rs.96,58,514/- in assessment year 2020 assessment year 2021 2022-23, which is more than the enough of Rs.2,68,06,600/- shown by the assessee in financial year 2019 2020 and financial year 2020 Rs.10,00,000/- in prior year 5.2 Upon a careful s Assessee has demonstrated a robust financial profile, reporting substantial returns in preceding years not disproportionate to the Assessee’s documented standard of living and earnings. was withdrawn in F.Y. 2019 to provide a liquidity cushion for medical emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Indian socio particularly for a taxpayer supporting elderly parents during a Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 out of which the Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the amount of Rs.90,000/- leaving balance addition of Rs.14,69,391/ The Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the source of the cash awal made in the current years, but he has not considered withdrawal made by the assessee in financial year 2019 -21 i.e. immediately prior to the year under consideration. The assessee has explained salary income more than salary income of Rs.2,54,40, 525/- in assessment year 19; Rs.94,56,130/- in assessment year 2019 in assessment year 2020-21 ; Rs.95,45,619/ assessment year 2021-22 and Rs.1,67,585/- in assessmen which is more than the enough to explain shown by the assessee in financial year 2019 2020 and financial year 2020-21 and family saving of approximately in prior years. Upon a careful scrutiny of the facts, we find that firstly, t Assessee has demonstrated a robust financial profile, reporting substantial returns in preceding years .The quantum of deposits is not disproportionate to the Assessee’s documented standard of Secondly, the Assessee contended that cash was withdrawn in F.Y. 2019-20 and 2020-21 (totaling to provide a liquidity cushion for medical emergencies during the 19 pandemic. In the Indian socio-economic context, taxpayer supporting elderly parents during a Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 6 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 out of which the Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the leaving balance addition of Rs.14,69,391/-. cash deposit out has not considered withdrawal made by the assessee in financial year 2019-2020 and immediately prior to the year under income earned of in assessment year in assessment year 2019-2020; 21 ; Rs.95,45,619/- in in assessment year to explain the withdrawal shown by the assessee in financial year 2019- saving of approximately we find that firstly, the Assessee has demonstrated a robust financial profile, reporting The quantum of deposits is not disproportionate to the Assessee’s documented standard of he Assessee contended that cash 21 (totaling ₹26,80,600/-) to provide a liquidity cushion for medical emergencies during the economic context, taxpayer supporting elderly parents during a Printed from counselvise.com global health crisis, such an explanation is not merely \"plausible\" it is inherently probable. that the Assessee failed to prove a hand. However, it is a settled principle of law that once a withdrawal from a known source (bank account) is established, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove that such funds were utilized elsewhere. The Revenue cannot proceed on a purely suspicious footing or the presumption that cash withdrawn must be spent immediately. 5.3 The Revenue authorities said money withdrawn was used for any other purposes the Revenue is able to establish that those withd anywhere else, the contention of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on the basis of presumption by the Revenue Authorities. Ld. CIT(A) erred in adopting a restrictive approach by ignoring the availability of cash from prior years and the In the absence of any evidence that the withdrawn cash was spent or invested elsewhere, the Assessee's explanation regarding the re deposit of the same cannot be brushed aside as an afterthought. 5.4 The assessee relied on the Tribunal in the case of Suthakar Selvaraj vs. ITO in ITA No. 1656/Bang/2025, wherein also similar explanation of the cash deposit made out of withdrawn was accepted by the Tribunal observing that there was no reason to disbeli Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 global health crisis, such an explanation is not merely \"plausible\" it is inherently probable. Thirdly, the Revenue’s primary objection is that the Assessee failed to prove a one to one trail of the cash in d. However, it is a settled principle of law that once a withdrawal from a known source (bank account) is established, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove that such funds were utilized elsewhere. The Revenue cannot proceed on a purely suspicious ing or the presumption that cash withdrawn must be spent The Revenue authorities have not been able to point out that withdrawn was used for any other purposes evenue is able to establish that those withdrawals he contention of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on the basis of presumption by the Revenue Authorities. Ld. CIT(A) erred in adopting a restrictive approach by ignoring the availability of cash from prior years and the cumulative family pool. In the absence of any evidence that the withdrawn cash was spent or invested elsewhere, the Assessee's explanation regarding the re deposit of the same cannot be brushed aside as an afterthought. The assessee relied on the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suthakar Selvaraj vs. ITO in ITA No. 1656/Bang/2025, wherein also similar explanation of the cash deposit made out of withdrawn was accepted by the Tribunal observing that there was no reason to disbelieve the explanation of Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 7 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 global health crisis, such an explanation is not merely \"plausible\"— he Revenue’s primary objection is trail of the cash in d. However, it is a settled principle of law that once a withdrawal from a known source (bank account) is established, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove that such funds were utilized elsewhere. The Revenue cannot proceed on a purely suspicious ing or the presumption that cash withdrawn must be spent not been able to point out that withdrawn was used for any other purposes. Unless, rawals were used he contention of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on the basis of presumption by the Revenue Authorities. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in adopting a restrictive approach by ignoring the cumulative family pool. In the absence of any evidence that the withdrawn cash was spent or invested elsewhere, the Assessee's explanation regarding the re- deposit of the same cannot be brushed aside as an afterthought. Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suthakar Selvaraj vs. ITO in ITA No. 1656/Bang/2025, wherein also similar explanation of the cash deposit made out of withdrawn was accepted by the Tribunal eve the explanation of Printed from counselvise.com the assessee on the assumption that person drawing salary does not indulge in the habit of first unnecessary withdrawing money from the bank and then deposit the same after few days. The Tribunal observed that when there was no evide amount of the cash withdrawn by the assessee was used for some other purposes and the amount of deposit made by the assessee was out of unaccounted income of the assessee made was acceptable. The Tribunal further observed tha not any adverse evidence presumption, the addition of cash deposit could not have been sustained. 5.6 In our opinion, facts and circumstances in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2022 the decision in the case of respectfully following the finding of the Co decision, we do not find any justification in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) for sustaining the addition of Rs.23,99,900/ year 2022-23 and Rs.14,61,391/ Accordingly, we find no legal or factual justification for s additions of ₹23,99,900/ 2023-24). The orders of the Ld. CIT(A) on these counts are set aside, and the additions are hereby deleted. 5.7 As the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment were not pressed, they are dismissed as infructuous. Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 the assessee on the assumption that person drawing salary does not indulge in the habit of first unnecessary withdrawing money from the bank and then deposit the same after few days. The Tribunal observed that when there was no evide amount of the cash withdrawn by the assessee was used for some other purposes and the amount of deposit made by the assessee ccounted income of the assessee, the made was acceptable. The Tribunal further observed tha adverse evidence and merely on basis of assumption and the addition of cash deposit could not have been In our opinion, facts and circumstances in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2022-23 and 23-24 are identical to the decision in the case of Suthakar Selvaraj (supra), therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of the decision, we do not find any justification in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) for sustaining the addition of Rs.23,99,900/- 23 and Rs.14,61,391/- in assessment year 2023 Accordingly, we find no legal or factual justification for s 23,99,900/- (A.Y. 2022-23) and ₹14,69,391/ 24). The orders of the Ld. CIT(A) on these counts are set aside, and the additions are hereby deleted. As the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment were ssed, they are dismissed as infructuous. Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 8 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 the assessee on the assumption that person drawing salary does not indulge in the habit of first unnecessary withdrawing money from the bank and then deposit the same after few days. The Tribunal observed that when there was no evidence that the amount of the cash withdrawn by the assessee was used for some other purposes and the amount of deposit made by the assessee , the cash deposit made was acceptable. The Tribunal further observed that there was assumption and the addition of cash deposit could not have been In our opinion, facts and circumstances in the case of the 24 are identical to Suthakar Selvaraj (supra), therefore, ordinate Bench of the decision, we do not find any justification in the finding of the Ld. - in assessment in assessment year 2023-24. Accordingly, we find no legal or factual justification for sustaining 14,69,391/- (A.Y. 24). The orders of the Ld. CIT(A) on these counts are set aside, As the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment were Printed from counselvise.com 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/02/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed ounced in the open Court on 25/02/2026. Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia 9 ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed /02/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "