ANNASO BHAUSO MOGLADE,NANDANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 690/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 September 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the deficiencies pointed out by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh consideration of the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2016-17. The AO reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 71,74,036/- as unexplained money due to substantial cash deposits in the bank account. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable due to alleged deficiencies.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable due to alleged deficiencies, and whether the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 690/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Annaso Bhauso Moglade, Income Tax Officer, nandani nandani, Ward-1, Nandani S.O Nandani vs. Ichalkaranji Kolhapur Maharashtra-416102. PAN : ARSPM9176E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Department by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 17-06-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 07-09-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18-12-2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-17.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For AY 2016-17, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on the information available with the Department, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee had deposited substantial cash amounting to Rs. 63,66,800/- into the bank account maintained with Nandani Sahakari Bank Ltd. which had escaped assessment due to non-filing of the return. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and accordingly, as per the prescribed mandate, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 23-03-2023. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return and declared total income of Rs. 5,15,260/-.

2 ITA No. 690/PUN/2026 During the re-assessment proceedings, the assessee filed part response to the notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 21-12-2023 containing the proposed variation and the assessee was required to submit details by 28-12-2023. Since the assessee sought adjournment, another show cause notice with proposed variation was issued on 04-01-2024 requiring the assessee to file reply by 10-01-2024, however, the assessee failed to do so. After considering and analyzing the ITR and the bank statement of the assessee, the Ld.AO concluded that the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits and usage of cash and other fund withdrawals with supporting evidence and therefore, he proceeded to complete the assessment thereby making an addition of Rs. 71,74,036/- (comprising cash deposit of Rs. 65,91,800/- and deposits other than cash of Rs. 5,82,236/-) treating the same as „unexplained money‟ u/s. 69A of the Act, vide his order dt. 29-01-2024, passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, challenging the aforesaid addition. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable on account of non-removal of deficiency/defect in the appeal filed by the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine on incorrect ground of deficiency in appeal and thereby confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.71,74,036/-as unexplained money in respect of cash deposited in his bank account, in spite of the appellant having a clear explanation for the source of investment. The appellant submits that,  there actually be no deficiency in the appeal filed by the appellant the dismissal of appeal in limine on such incorrect ground is incorrect

3 ITA No. 690/PUN/2026  His source of cash deposits in bank is fully explained being out of his business transactions ie. trading in agriculture implements, equipment's, farm tools and other material and hence no addition is called for in this respect. The appellant prays that the ITO be directed to delete the addition. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

5.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record as well as the paper book filed by the Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee. We find that the Ld.AO has completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 71,74,036/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the assessee‟s appeal as not maintainable due to certain deficiencies/defects pointed out by him in the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld.AR brought to our attention that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has pointed out the following deficiencies/defects in his deficiency letter dt. 19-03- 2024. Firstly, tax on returned income is not paid/particulars of payment is not mentioned in Form-35. The Ld.AR referred to Sr.No. 8.1 of Form-35, a copy of which is placed on pgs. 3-7 of the paper book and submitted that the allegation of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is incorrect and the assessee has filled in the requisite details which is evident from the details filled in Sr.No. 8.1 of Form-35 available on record. Secondly, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has alleged that Form-35 is incomplete and not filled properly, however, it can be seen from the Form-35 placed on record that all applicable columns were in fact filled in by the assessee and there is no column which is left blank. The third deficiency/defect observed by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for dismissing the assessee‟s appeal is that the appeal has been filed beyond time and the application for condonation of delay has not been filed by the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal was delayed by 13 days and the assessee had duly mentioned the same in column 14 and 15 of Form-35 and along with it, filed a letter requesting for the condonation of

4 ITA No. 690/PUN/2026 delay in filing of the appeal, a copy of which is placed on pgs. 8-9 of the paper book. Lastly, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has alleged that the grounds of appeal have not been appended with Form-35, whereas the Ld.AR submitted that the grounds of appeal as well as the statement of facts were duly attached with the appeal memo. He filed the screen shot from the Portal in support of his above claim (pg. 10 of the paper book refers). So far as the addition on merits is concerned, the Ld.AR submitted that since the source of cash deposits in bank has been fully explained by the assessee being out of his business transactions i.e. trading in agriculture implements, equipments, Farm Tools and other material and therefore, no addition is called for in this respect. The Ld.AR therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted with one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite explanation/details/documents. On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that since the assessee failed to remove the defects/deficiencies in the appeal memo in spite of several opportunities granted, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was completely justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. From the perusal of the appeal memo in Form-35 filed by the assessee and other documents placed on record before us, we find some force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper, in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to consider the assessee‟s appeal afresh after due verification of the assessee‟s claim and decide the same as he may deem to be appropriate as a result of such verification thereof. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and make his submissions before him on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any

5 ITA No. 690/PUN/2026 pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07-09-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; Tadepalli Naga Digitally signed by Tadepalli Naga Murali Mohan दिन ांक/Dated : 07-09-2026 Murali Mohan Date: 2026.09.08 11:57:09 +05'30' TNMM

आिेश की प्रदिदिदप अग्रेदिि / Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईि / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →