SANDIPAN BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,LATUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

ITA 1247/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, a retired principal, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was initially based on an assessment order alleging unexplained cash deposits in his bank accounts. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment under section 147 and issued a notice under section 148, leading to the addition of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the assessment process, particularly the failure to provide the assessee with a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and the approval of the competent authority, as mandated by judicial precedents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669052 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer & Ors, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHILCHANDRA HAJGUDE
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Salary income; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, 1, Padmin, Behind Hanuman Temple, Prakash Nagar, Latur – 413512. Maharashtra. V s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur. PAN: ABCPJ1410E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Shilchandra Hajgude – AR Revenue by Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 17/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 23/06/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2016-17, dated 15.09.2024 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, dated 25.03.2022. ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 2 Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted a paper book. At the outset, ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 180 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. Ld.AR took us through the Affidavit filed by the assessee to explain that there was sufficient cause for delay. Ld.AR explained that Assessee is a Retired Principal of Rajarshi Shashu Mahavidyalay, Latur. Ld.AR submitted that bank account referred by Assessing Officer(AO) belongs to Yashwantrao Chavan Mukta Vidyapeeth Kendra, Rajarshi Shahu Mahavidyalaya, Latur and the Bank Account Number is 60049914364, Bank of Maharashtra, Main Branch, Latur. Ld.AR submitted that erroneously Assessing Officer(AO) considered the deposits made in the said bank account as Assessee’s i.e.Mr.Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav’s money, ignoring the fact that the Account belongs to Trust. Ld.AR further submitted that by mistake assessee’s PAN was linked to the Account by the Bank. Ld.AR took us through the statement of bank to demonstrate that Account belongs to the Trust. Ld.AR also invited our attention to Certificate issued by the Bank which is at Page No.121 of the paper book. Ld.AR therefore, submitted that addition may be deleted. Ld.AR admitted that there was no proper ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 3 representation either before the AO or ld.CIT(A) as assessee had travelled to USA for medical reasons of his family member. Ld.AR invited our attention to the copy of the Passport and medical reports which are in the paper book. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, on 31.03.2021. The relevant paragraphs of the assessment order are reproduced here as under : “2. In this case information is available in ITBA-Multi Year NMS priority-1 module of system and from the records available with this office, it is seen that assessee during the FY 2015-16 had made Cash deposit aggregating Rs. 10 Lakhs or more with a banking. As per ITBA AIMS module the total of such cash deposits in saving bank account is Rs. 1,03,73,085/- and salary received at Rs. 7,44,162/- 3. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 after recording reasons and taking prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax wherein requiring return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 within 30 days from the service of this notice. The notice u/s 148 was duly served upon ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 4 the assessee through e-mail. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2021. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 08.11.2021. 7. As per the return filed by the assesee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has shown Income from salary at Rs.12,62,494/- and income from other source at Rs.1.21,715/- As per information available with the department, the assessee has deposited Rs. 1,03,73,085/-in its bank accounts 1) 60002346086 and 2)60049914364 maintained with Bank of Maharashtra. 8. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee to explain source of the deposits in his bank account. The assessee has only furnished a submission stating that he will furnish the details. Apart from the submission assessee has never furnish any documentary evidence. Inspite of the opportunities given, the assesseee failed to explain the source of deposits in his bank account. The assessee has no explanation for the deposits in his accounts. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,03,73,085/- remains unexplained and is added back to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment is initiated separately. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with the delay of 141 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay. The assessee had filed Affidavit explaining the reason for delay. On perusal of the Affidavit we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for the delay. ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 5 6. In this case, as per the submission of the ld.AR, Assessee is a Retired Principal at Rajarshi Shahu Mahavidyalaya, Latur. 6.1 We have perused the bank statement of Account No.60049914364 maintained with Bank of Maharashtra, Latur(page 45 to 98 of the paper book). On the first page of the said bank statement, the account holder’s name is mentioned as under : “YESHWANTRAO CHAVAN MUKTA VIDHYAPEETH RAJASHREE SHAHU MAHAVID ACCOUNT NO: 60049914364” 6.1.1 Thus, the said bank account is not in the name of the assessee. Assessee has filed certificates to that effect issued by the Bank and the Mahavidyalaya. These certificates were not filed by the assessee during the Assessment Proceedings. We admit these certificates as additional evidence as they go to the root of the issue. However, in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has made addition in the case of the assessee alleging cash deposits made in the said bank account and bank Account Number 60002346086. In the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has mentioned two bank accounts. However, the Assessing Officer has not specified how much cash was deposited in each account. ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 6 6.2 Thus, one thing is clear that the Assessing Officer has not bothered to obtain Copy of the Bank Account Statements from the Bank. Assessing Officer has merely stated that Assessee failed to file details. 6.3 However, ironically the Ld.AR has not filed copy of the bank statement of another bank Account Number 60002346086 mentioned in the Assessment Order. 6.4 Thus, neither the Ld.DR nor the Ld.AR is willing to bring all facts on record. 7. It is also noted that nowhere in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has mentioned regarding providing copy of Reasons recorded to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer &Ors on 25 November, 2002,259 ITR 19 (2003) has held that Assessing Officer is bound to furnish copy of Reasons recorded once assessee has filed return in response to notice u/s.148. ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 7 7.1 It is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to provide Copy of the Reasons Recorded for reopening along with Copy of the Approval of Competent Authority. 7.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2022] 443ITR 127 (Bombay)vide order dated 15-02-2022has held as under : Quote, “ 8. In the circumstances, the Revenue is directed to adhere to the following: (a) While communicating the reasons for re-opening the assessment, a copy of the standard form/request sent by the Assessing Officer for obtaining approval of the Superior Officer should itself be provided to the assessee. This would contain comment or endorsement of the Superior Officer with his name, designation and date. The Assessing Officer shall not merely state the reasons in the letter addressed to the assessee. (b) If the reasons make reference to any other document or a letter or a report, such document or letter or report should be enclosed to the reasons. Such portion as it does not bear reference to the assessee concerned could be redacted. (c) The order disposing the objections should deal with each objections and give proper reasons for the conclusion. (d) A personal hearing shall be given and minimum seven working days advance notice of such personal hearing shall be granted. ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 8 (e) If the Assessing Officer is going to rely on any judgment/order of any Tribunal or Court reference/citation of these judgment/orders shall be provided along with notice for personal hearing so that the assessee will be able to deal with/distinguish these judgments/orders. 9. A copy of this order be placed before the members of the Central Board of Direct Taxes who shall issue guidelines to all its officers based on the directions given above with clear instructions that they shall be strictly followed. We only hope that, this will reduce the same errors being repeated by the concerned revenue authorities and will not drive the assessee to rush to the court. Thereby, the burden on the court will also get reduced”. Unquote. 7.3 The Assessment Order was passed on 25/03/2022 i.e.After the above referred directions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, the Assessing Officer has not followed the directions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 8. In these facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the Assessment Order to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall follow the directions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and also provide opportunity to the assessee. The Assessee shall be at liberty to file documents before the AO. The Assessing Officer shall study the respective Bank Account Statements, account opening forms to decide whether the accounts pertain to the assessee. If the Bank account does not pertain to the ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] 9 assessee, then, no addition can be made in the case of the assessee based on that bank account. 9. We have noted from the Affidavit that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important. Hence, delay is condoned. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23 June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P.RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 23 June, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "