SHRI ASHOK KESHAVRAO THUBE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), NASHIK, NASHIK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration based on additional evidence filed by the assessee. The lower authorities had doubted the assessee's business claims.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a regular return for AY 2012-13 but later filed one after a notice for cash deposits of Rs. 37,55,630/-. The AO added this amount to income, disbelieving the assessee's explanation of business receipts from stone metal and truck plying.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits were genuine business receipts and if additional evidence should be considered for re-examination by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 14.03.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular Return of Income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer Rs.37,55,630/- in the bank account with Dena Bank, Deolali Camp, Nashik, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 30.03.2019. In response to the notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed the return of income on 13.11.2019 disclosing returned income of Rs.3,35,124/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 26.12.2019 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.40,90,754/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.37,55,630/- rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits were made out of the business receipt from the business of sale of stone metal and truck plying. The Assessing Officer had disbelieved that the appellant was carrying on the business of sale of stone metal and truck plying. According to the Assessing Officer, the appellant had failed to prove that the appellant was carrying on the above businesses by leading necessary evidence.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026