GOROBA DAGDU CHAME,LATUR vs. ITO WARD-1, LATUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.276/PUN/2026, 278/PUN/2026 & 277/PUN/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Goroba Dogdu Chame, ITO, Ward-1, 01, shivparvati Industries, Ausa Road, M.I.D.C. Latur-413512, Latur-413512, Vs. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN-AHFPC2186B Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri. Prateek Jha.AR Revenue by : Shri.Rajesh Haladkar. Sr.DR Date of hearing : 01.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of NFAC/(CIT(A) passed u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer.

2 ITA Nos. 276, 278 & 277/PUN/2026 Goroba Dagdu Chame 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has not pressed the ground of appeal no.2 & 3 in all the three appeals. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are withdrawn and are dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case that, the income tax department has received information that the assessee has made substantial cash deposits in the bank account in F.Y.2012-13 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and there was no compliance. Further, notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates to explain the sources of deposits in the bank account and there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer considering the information available on record invoked the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and made the addition of unexplained money u/sec 69A of the Act of Rs.58,57,636/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 17.03.2022. On filling the appeal against the said order with the CIT(A), the appellate authority has set aside the order for denova assessment as per the provisions of section251(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O has issued notice u/sec142(1) of the Act and show cause notice to explain the sources of cash deposits and the assessee has filed the submissions mentioning that he is a dealer in scrap and allied steel items in the Latur market and other places. The assessee on behalf of buyers and sellers of scrap used to receive the monies and deposit/transfer the amounts as per instructions in the bank account and the assessee is entitled for only marginal income by way of commission/profit. Whereas the A.O was not satisfied with

3 ITA Nos. 276, 278 & 277/PUN/2026 Goroba Dagdu Chame the explanations as the assessee could not substantiate the cash deposits with proper evidences and made addition of unexplained money under Section 69A of Rs. 58,90,986/- and passed the order under Section 147r.w.s. 250 and 144B of the Income Tax Act dated 07.10.2025. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed the appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, submissions and findings of the Assessing officer but confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the assessee’s submissions and not accepting the contentions of the assessee that the cash deposits in bank account are out of the business turnover and alternatively profit component has to be taxed on estimated basis. The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions with paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the assessee’s appeal. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issues envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining action of the Assessing officer being the addition of unexplained money u/sec69A of the Act overlooking the details and proceedings. The Ld.ARs information filled in the contentions are that the cash deposits in bank account are out of the business turnover of scrap and allied steel items. Whereas on perusal of bank statements filed by the assessee placed at page 1 to 5 of the paper book, we find maximum

4 ITA Nos. 276, 278 & 277/PUN/2026 Goroba Dagdu Chame transactions pertains to cash deposits/remittances/ withdrawals from different places/locations of the assessee bank account maintained at various places. The Ld.AR explanations are that such deposits are out of the business turnover of scrap and allied goods and the assessee is entitled to commission income or alternatively only profit percentage has to be taxed. Whereas the assessee could not substantiate the transactions of deposits with any primary or secondary evidence supporting with books of accounts, invoices copy of sale and purchases, expenses incurred on running of the business or any document in support of the business. We considering the facts, circumstances and judicial decisions set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing officer to adjudicate afresh on merits considering the peak balance of bank account or 8% of the cash deposits whichever is higher. Further the assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And this ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA.No.278/PUN/2026 A.Y. 2014-15 & ITA. No. 277/PUN/2026 A.Y. 2015-16. 9. As the facts and circumstances in these two appeals are identical to ITA No.276/PUN/2026 for the A.Y 2013-14 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraphs 7&8 would apply mutatis mutandis for these two appeals also.

5 ITA Nos. 276, 278 & 277/PUN/2026 Goroba Dagdu Chame

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated: 04th September, 2026. Abhishek Digitally signed by Abhishek Mohan Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.09.07 12:54:07 +05'30' आिेश की प्रतितितप अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इि / Guard File. 5. //True Copy//

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.