SHEETAL KISHINCHAND TEJWANI,PUNE V. CIT(A) CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 537/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sheetal Kishinchand Tejwani, the appellant, who contested the additions made to her income by the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The additions were made due to unexplained cash deposits in her bank account, which were significantly higher than her reported income. The CIT(A) partly allowed her appeal, reducing the addition but still sustaining a substantial amount. The Tribunal, after hearing the Department's representative and reviewing the records, decided to uphold the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830708 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRINTED FROM COUNSELVISE.COM
• Keywords: Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.537/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2014-15 Sheetal Kishinchand Tejwani 26/1, Housing Board, Pimpri Colony, Pune – 411017 Vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune PAN: AEFPT6719Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 21-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.12.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the name of the assessee was called. No application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was fixed for a number of time and no one was appearing. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.537/PUN/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 30.09.2014 declaring total income of the assessee at Rs.11,77,387/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for limited purpose. The reason of selection for scrutiny is large amount of sundry creditors and cash deposits in savings bank account which is more than the turnover. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee and subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,16,82,364/- wherein he made addition of Rs.2,05,04,977/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account on various dates. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under: Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.537/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.537/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.537/PUN/2025 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in understanding the method of accounting followed by the and treating it as inconsistent with the regular method of accounting. The AO ought to have appreciated that the recording of transaction in a different manner does not amount to non-recording when would not have any effect on the books of accounts and balance sheet reported as on 31.03.2014. 2. As regards the cash deposit of ₹7,00,000/-, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the amount as unexplained cash deposit, solely on the ground the same was not routed through the Cash book whereas the amounts received on sale of Maruti car were directly deposited by the Buyer into the account and the same has been duly recorded in the books of Appellant. 3. As regards the cash received of Rs.70,62,097/-, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the amount of Rs.70,62,097/- as unexplained for want of confirmation from the ultimate purchaser of the car, when the Appellant has furnished the confirmation of the agent to whom the car was sold as a common trade practice. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in ignoring the documents submitted during appeal proceedings such as RC before and after transfer of vehicle and valuation reports establishing the valuation of the vehicles, by treating the amounts as unexplained. 5. As regards the total disallowances of ₹ 77,62,097 u/s 68, the learned AO failed to appreciate without prejudice to all the evidences and documents placed on record by the Appellant, that the cars sold were transferred to the buyers during the year and Appellant received no other form of consideration for the market value of the cars other than the cash received which was deposited in the bank of the Appellant. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the ground either before or at the time of hearing, as may be necessary. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-substantiation of the nature of cash deposited in the bank account, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,05,04,977/-. We find based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC granted part relief to the assessee, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.537/PUN/2025 paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustaining the addition of Rs.77,62,097/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,05,04,977/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC after considering the submissions made by the assessee in a detailed speaking order has granted part relief to the assessee. Nothing more has been brought to our notice to take a different view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 21st January, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.537/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 21.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 21.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "