BAPURAO ABHIMAN CHAVAN,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, AKOLA, AKOLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 72/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the sources of credits, including loans from his son, wife, and a refund from a builder, with supporting evidence. The remaining amount was from accumulated savings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, who did not file a return for AY 2019-20, faced reassessment proceedings due to cash deposits. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 16,97,682 as unexplained money under Section 69A, which the CIT(A) confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A when the assessee provided evidence for the sources of credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR SMC BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Shende, Sr.DR
Hearing: 29/07/2026Pronounced: 04/09/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR "SMC" BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual)

ITA No. 72/NAG/2026 (Asst. Year : 2019-20) Bapurao Abhiman ITO, Ward-1, Akola. Chavan, Panchyat Samiti vs Quarter Katol ,Tah-Katol, Nagpur-441302. PAN : AJXPC 6133 E Assessee Revenue

Assessee by : Shri Sachin Jaiswal, Advocate Department by : Shri Abhay Shende, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 29/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 04/09/2026

O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 02.12.2025 passed u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 22.03.2024 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20.

2.

Sole issue involved in the present appeal is whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.16,97,682/- made by the Ld. AO u/sec. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me. I observe that assessee is an

2 ITA No.72/PUN/2026 (Bapurao Abhiman Chavan) individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2019-20. Based on the information about cash deposits in the bank account, re-assessment proceedings u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act were carried out after validly serving statutory notices u/sec. 148, 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Assessee filed return of income in compliance to the notice issued u/sec. 148 of the Act and declared income of Rs. 5,90,470/-. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) observed that there were total credits of Rs. 24,74,025/-, out of which, Ld. AO satisfied with the explanation for the amount of Rs. 7,76,343/- and for the remaining amount of credits of Rs. 16,97,682/-, Ld. AO was not satisfied and he made the addition on account of unexplained money u/sec. 69A of the Act and assessed the income at Rs.22,88,152/-. Thereafter, assessee challenged this addition before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed.

4.

Before me, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the sources of the alleged credits comprise Rs. 15,80,000/- received from the assessee’s son, Rs. 63,700/- received from the assessee’s wife, and Rs. 50,000/- received from Dhanlaxmi Builders and Developers towards cancellation of booking of a flat booked during the previous year. Reference is also made for confirmation of loan amount from Shyam Bapurao Chavhan (son), is placed in paper book at page No.5 along with tax return and bank statement. It is also submitted that assessee’s son took housing loan from Piramal Capital & Housing Finance at Rs.27,62,298/- and out of these funds, he gave loan to his father-assessee.

5.

I have gone through the records placed in the paper book running from 1 to 27 and observe that so far as loan taken by the assessee from his son, the identity is not in dispute and genuineness of the transaction is also established as the

3 ITA No.72/PUN/2026 (Bapurao Abhiman Chavan) assessee has taken loan from his son. Further, the creditworthiness of the son to advance such loan is also established from the housing loan statement issued by Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. in the name of his son, evidencing a housing loan of Rs. 27,62,298/- availed by him. Thus, the source and capacity of the son to advance the amount to the assessee stand duly substantiated. Further, housing loan has been received from time to time from bank account of Shyam Bapurao Chavhan held with State Bank of India and loan has been given to the assessee through account payee cheques from April 2018 till October 2018, totaling to Rs. 15,18,000/-. I, therefore, hold that since the assessee has successfully explained the nature of source of the unsecured loan taken from his son with all necessary evidence, credits in the bank account are explained and, therefore neither section 68 nor 69 could have been invoked for the said sum and addition is thus uncalled for.

6.

As regards loan of Rs. 63,700/- received from wife of the assessee, the assessee’s claim is that his wife owns agricultural land and she is earning agricultural income, stands established with 7/12 extract placed at paper book page No.27 and considering smallness of amount and the loan received from assessee’s wife, the same stands explained.

7.

Lastly, Rs.50,000/- from Dhanlaxmi Builders and Developers, assessee received the said amount through banking channel as the same is refund of cancellation for booking of a flat and the same is verifiable from bank statement. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view, the assessee has successfully explained the source of credits in its bank account amounting to Rs. 16,93,700/-.

4 ITA No.72/PUN/2026 (Bapurao Abhiman Chavan) 8. So far as the remaining amount of Rs. 3,982/-, the same is from the accumulated savings of the assessee. Therefore, finding of Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the impugned addition of Rs. 16,97,682/- made u/sec. 69A of the Act stands deleted and effective grounds of appeal on merits are allowed.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 04th September, 2026 under Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune & Dated : 04th Sept., 2026 vr/- Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. PCIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File

BY ORDER Vukkem Digitally signed by Vukkem Rambabu //True Copy// Rambabu Date: 2026.09.07 13:20:00 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →