VIJAY SHRIDHAR WADKAR,SANGLI V. ITO WD- 6, SANGLI

ITA 1771/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Shridhar Wadkar, an individual engaged in the business as a distributor for Vodafone Idea Ltd, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.51,80,990, which was deposited in the assessee's bank account, to his income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance in providing the source of these deposits. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 8% of these deposits, which the assessee contested, arguing that his income was solely from commissions received, not from the cash deposits themselves. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning and findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831297 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MEHTA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1); 68; 44AD

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.1771/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2017-18 Vijay Shridhar Wadkar A/P Ashta, Tal-Walwa, Dist. Sangli – 416301 Vs. ITO, Ward – 6, Sangli PAN: ACRPW4758L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 22-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 23-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. No application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that in the previous occasions also no one was appearing. Further, there is a delay of 419 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee. 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.1771/PUN/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business as distributor of Vodafone Idea Ltd under the trade name Navkar Agency. The assessee collects recharge amount for the company and remits the same to the company and he gets commission from the company. He filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,16,180/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following reason: “Large cash deposits in bank account(s) during the year” 4. Accordingly 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. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on a number of times. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. On perusal of ITS data generated on system, he noted that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.51,80,990/- in his Current Account maintained with Ashta Peoples Cooperative Bank, Ashta Branch. In absence of any submission to explain the source of such cash deposit, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.54,97,170/-. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee made certain submissions, based on which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer which was confronted to the assessee. After considering the submissions Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1771/PUN/2025 of the assessee to such remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Learned CIT Appeal has erred in fact and in law in directing AO to determine income of the appellant @ 8% of the cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant despite the fact that the appellant is service provider for recharge vouchers for Vodafone Idea Ltd and the income of the appellant is only commission received from Vodafone Idea Ltd and hence the assessment of the income by applying 8% Net profit ratio is patently invalid and perverse being contrary to the facts and evidences and hence deserves to be deleted. 2. Learned CIT Appeal has erred in fact and in law in directing AO to determine income of the appellant @ 8% of the cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant despite the fact that the cash deposited by the appellant was collected from customers of the company namely Vodafone Idea Ltd and this fact is undisputed by CIT Appeal also at para 5.4. of his order and ergo the assessed income should be only commission received to the appellant and not 8% of the cash deposit, and hence the assessment of the income by applying 8% Net profit ratio is patently invalid and perverse being contrary to the facts and evidences and hence deserves to be deleted. 3. Learned CIT Appeal has erred in fact and in law in directing AO to determine income of the appellant @ 8% of the cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant despite the fact that appellant is commission agent of Vodafone Idea Ltd and his activity is not covered by provisions of Sec 44AD which prescribes 8% net profit on gross receipts, and ergo the actual commission received from the company should be assessed income and not 8% of the cash deposit, hence the assessment of the income by applying 8% Net profit ratio is patently invalid and perverse being contrary to the facts and evidences and hence deserves to be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add grounds of appeal or alter, amend any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that he has given a direction to the Assessing Officer to estimate the income @ 8% on the receipts by observing as under: Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1771/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1771/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1771/PUN/2025 8. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Since the assessee did not furnish any details before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings and since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to estimate the income @ 8% of the total cash deposits, therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in our opinion is a reasoned order and does not call for any intereference. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 23rd 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.1771/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 22.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 22.01.2026 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 "