SUBODH SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4927/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs.4,50,000 was not based on the recorded reasons for reopening and the period of the proceeding. The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable and deleted it.

What were the facts?

The Assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information about cash deposits of Rs.14,36,500 during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted a deposit of Rs.9,86,500 and made an addition of Rs.4,50,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO was unsustainable due to not being based on the recorded reasons and the relevant period for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Dnyanesh Patade, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 18.09.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 04.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

M/s. Subodh Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 2. It appears from the impugned order that in the appellant proceedings, 5 notices were issued to the Assessee, however, the Assesses made no compliance as recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in Para 6. However, the Ld. Counsel Shri Dnyanesh Patade, CA who, on the contrary, by drawing attention of this Court to the page 32 of the paper book which is acknowledgement dt. 07.03.2022 for submission of various document in response to the noticees dated 03.02.2025 and 27.01.2025, which remains unnoticed may be inadvertently or oversight or otherwise by the Ld. Commissioner.

2.1 Whatsoever it may be, coming to the merit of the case, it is observed that the AO reopened the case of the Assessee by recording reasons for reopening u/s 147 of the Act mainly on the information received that the Assessee has made cash deposits Rs.14,36,500/- during the demonization period i.e. 09 November to 30 December 2016 in the Mumbai District Central Cooperative Bank Limited Bhatwari and therefore the AO in order to verify such transaction, by issuing statutory notice, show caused the Assessee, who in response to statutory notice submitted before the Ld. AO that it has deposited Rs.9,86,500/- in the aforesaid bank account by collecting deposits from the members.

2.2 The AO considered the Assessee’s claim qua deposit of Rs.9,86,500/- as correct and made no addition on that count and by subtracting the said amount of Rs.9,86,500/- from the amount of Rs.14,36,500/-, ultimately affirmed the addition of Rs.4,50,000/-, on which the Assessee has stated that this amount was deposited on 8.11.2016 but not on 09.11.2016.

3.

Though the Ld. DR. relied on the order passed by the authorities below and refuted the claim of the Assessee but not the

4.

Considering the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstance of the case, specific to the effect that the addition is not based on the reasons recorded and/or the period pertains to reopening of the proceeding, this Court is inclined to delete the addition Rs.4,50,000/- being unsustainable. Consequently, the addition is deleted by allowing the appeal of the Assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →