NAGENDRA UMASHANKAR YADAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(1), MUMBAI
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM Mr. Nagendra Umashankar Yadav, B/2, Kurla Samarth CHS, Building No.1, Karmasanket, Nehru Nagar, Mumbai – 400 024 Vs. ITO 22(2)(1) Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN:ABIPY9015A (Appellant) : (Respondent)
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless
Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The learned CIT(A) seriously erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in arbitrarily making additions of the Cash deposit in JIBS of Rs.7,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s. who is running a Pan shop and due to demonetization all the savings of the earlier years of my father for the sake of convenience was deposited by me in my JIBS account as the old notes were no more the legal tender, the CIT(A) has in the alleged order mentioned "I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts,
Mr. Nagendra Umashankar Yadav assessment order. It was submitted that due to demonetization the savings of his father was deposited in his bank accounts, who is running a pan shop and all the money was is hard earned money for last several years, for the sake of convenience it was deposited in his bank accounts which is quit practical at that time. It is only a make believe explanation.
There is no strength in the submissions of the appellant. The Learned CIT(A) was informed vide submission made during the course of assessment proceedings that cash deposited in JTBS was out of the earlier years saving in fact life time savings of my father, your honor as I have deposited the savings of my father in my account I do not have any documentary evidence in respect of that, it was a father son relation and during that period it was deposited out of necessity as there was no other option, making addition of the same as unexplained money is very harsh and arbitrary and which deserves to be deleted.
Your Appellant denies any liability on account of Interests charged U/s. 23-48 and C. Direction be given to re workout the said interests and for delete the same, being consequential.
Your Appellant craves leave, to add to, amend, modify or alter, the aforesaid grounds and/or adduce further evidence, before or at the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income dated 31.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,46,290/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice dated 30.03.2021 u/s. 148 of the Act based on the information received from Central Railways, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Mumbai, CSMT that the Central Railways has allotted a license to interested persons to work as JTBS (Jan Sadharan Ticket Booking Sevaks) for issuing railway tickets to passengers on certain terms and conditions and the assessee who was engaged in the business of JTBS to issue railway tickets to passengers and receiving commission from IRCTC, was said to have deposited cash amounting to Rs.10,98,500/- during demonetisation period in the assessee’s bank account at JTBS. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act seeking for details along with documentary evidences with regard to the source of the cash deposit during the period from 07.11.2016 to 15.11.2016. After duly considering the assessee’s Mr. Nagendra Umashankar Yadav submission the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 10.03.2022 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income at Rs.9,96,290/- after making an addition of Rs.7,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained cash deposit which source was not explained by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.
Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 26.02.2025 upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO on same ground that the assessee has not filed any documentary evidences to explain the source of the cash deposit made during demonetisation period.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
Before us, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. A.R.” for short) for the assessee contended that the cash deposit of Rs.7,50,000/- was made by the assessee for recharging JTBS accounts during demonetisation period as the old currency notes were no more the legal tender and that the source of the said cash was from the savings of the assessee’s father who was running a pan shop. The Ld. A.R. further contended that the total deposit of Rs.10,98,500/- was made in JTBS in denominations of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- Rupee notes and the same pertained to the lifetime savings of the assessee’s father. The Ld. A.R. further prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities. Mr. Nagendra Umashankar Yadav
The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. D.R.” for short), on the other hand, contended that the assessee has not explained the source of cash deposit to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO neither before the Ld. AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. D.R. further argued that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities before the lower authorities and however, has failed to avail the said opportunities before both the authorities.
The Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s contention for the reason that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidences pertaining to his claim that the same belonged to his father which was out of the source of the income earned from the pan shop. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO on the ground that even during the appellate proceedings no additional evidences were filed by the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposit made during demonetisation period.
In the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO by furnishing all relevant documentary evidences to establish the source of cash deposits made during demonetisation period, by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation.
The assessee is directed to comply with the proceedings before the Ld. AO without any undue delay from his side and the Ld. AO is directed to decide the issue on the basis of the evidences filed by the assessee and on the merits of the case and in accordance with law. Mr. Nagendra Umashankar Yadav
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.12.2025
S d/-
S (RENU JAUHRI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated: 29.12.2025
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.