VYANKATESH NARAYAN KULKARNI,THANE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 3(4), THANE

ITA 1851/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni against the order of the CIT(A), which pertained to the Assessment Year 2022-23. The primary grievance was that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the specific facts and issues relevant to AY 2022-23, instead relying on findings from AY 2015-16. The additions made in the assessment order for AY 2022-23 under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 56,80,000, were contested. The appellant argued that these additions were based on unexplained cash deposits, which were partly from earlier withdrawals and partly from agricultural income, sources that were explained during the assessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652981 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P. KAUSHIK; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: MITALI PAREKH; AR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1851/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni 301, Sunflower Tower Kharkar Ali Road Parvati Bhavan Thane West - 400604 [PAN: AGMPK6406E] Vs Income Tax Officer 3(4), Thane अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Mitali Parekh, A/R Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 17/01/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2022-23. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the specific facts, issues, and grounds relevant to the Assessment Year 2022-23, and instead, relying entirely on the facts and findings of AY 2015-16. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in failing to appreciate that the additions of Rs. 56,80,000 were made in the assessment order for AY 2022-23 under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the additions involved in AY 2015-16 were under section 68 of Rs. 10,85,690 on account of agricultural income and section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 13,33,16,700 which are entirely different in nature and scope. I.T.A. No. 1851/Mum/2025 2 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without addressing the contentions, evidence, and legal arguments specifically raised by the appellant for AY 2022-23. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by passing a non-speaking order, which is devoid of any discussion, analysis, or findings regarding the appellant's grounds of appeal for AY 2022-23. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that each assessment year is independent and separate, and therefore, reliance on findings from AY 2015-16 to decide the appeal for AY 2022-23 is unjustified and contrary to settled judicial principles. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned addition of Rs. 56,80,000 made by the AO representing unexplained cash deposits in bank is erroneous as the said cash deposits are partly out of earlier withdrawals and partly out of agricultural income of the appellant and therefore are out of sources that were duly explained to the AO during the assessment proceedings. In view of the same, the addition of Rs. 56,80,000 deserves to be deleted. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The peculiar facts and circumstances are that while deciding the appeal of the assessee at page 5 para 5.2. of his order, the ld. CIT(A) has considered the grievance pertaining to AY 2015-16. Similarly, the grievance referred in Ground No. 2 & 3 also pertain to AY 2015-16 whereas the grievance before the ld. CIT(A) related to the cash deposit of Rs. 56.80 Lakhs. 4. It appears that the ld. First Appellate Authority has decided the appeal on wrong facts and, therefore, we remit the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on the grounds pertaining to AY 2022-23 only. I.T.A. No. 1851/Mum/2025 3 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th June, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/06/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश की \u0014ितिलिप अ\u0019ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001b / The Appellant 2. \u0014 थ\u001b / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0014ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai "