SANJIVANI MADHUKAR CHITRE,POLADPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 672/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 July 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A was crucial and went to the root of the matter. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual working as a service provider, filed her return of income. However, the Assessing Officer reopened the case upon discovering significant cash deposits in her bank account that were not reflected in her return. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,30,07,899/- as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether the additional evidence filed by the assessee should be admitted, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 250,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sathe
Hearing: 30.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2026 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre/NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and working as service provider to Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd. and Atyati Technologies Private Limited for providing financial services to people on commission basis. She filed her return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 within the time prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs.2,23,930/-. Based on the

2 ITA No.672/PUN/2026 Sanjivani Madhukar Chitre

information available with the Department that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.5,08,01,350/- in the current account but the same has not been shown in the income tax return, case of the assessee was reopened. Various statutory notices u/s.148, 143(2) and 142(1), show cause notice etc. were issued to the assessee to which the assessee furnished the requisite details. However, the ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and concluded the assessment making addition of Rs.5,30,07,899/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by holding as under :

“The reply of the assessee along with the details furnished has been perused and the contention of the assessee is found not acceptable on merits. The assessee has submitted that she was appointed as a business correspondent/super distributor during the year under consideration by Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd. They have furnished copy of ledger for payment of commission to the assessee, but nowhere had it mentioned that which bank account the assessee had used for making cash deposits on behalf of Rapipay. The Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd has not furnished a copy of agreement with the assessee. No requisite detail with satisfactory reply was filed by Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd. Further, Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Nearby Technologies Pvt. Ltd has completely failed to furnish the details with ledger account along with their bank accounts for which the assessee has used for making cash deposits for the year under consideration. Thus, the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposits and credit entries with justification along-with supporting documentary evidences. Therefore, the assessee was show-caused to as to why the total credit entry of Rs.5,30,07,899/-found in the above mentioned bank accounts should not be added to the total income as unexplained money u/s.69A of the I.T. Act. Various communications in the form of notices/letter/show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act have been issued to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings to provide the details of the transactions and to explain the transactions carried out in the said bank accounts but the assessee has failed to respond it with supporting documentary evidences.

3 ITA No.672/PUN/2026 Sanjivani Madhukar Chitre

After issuing Show-cause notice, the assessee has filed a reply on 12.02.2025 and 17.02.2025 and the same are duly considered. As mentioned above, on verification of the details and new submission dated 12.02.2025, it is found that the assessee had made cash deposits and received credit entries totalling to Rs.5,30,07,899/- in the bank account(s) during the year. The assessee has failed to offer any evidence/explanation in compliance to the show-cause notice. Therefore, the said deposits and credit entries in the bank account(s) are considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 69A of the Act are reproduced as under : “Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." In view of the above, the above said deposits and credit entries of amounting to Rs.5,30,07,899/- is added to total income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. under provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the I.T. Act is separately initiated. The relevant provisions of section 69A of the Act are reproduced as under.”

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)"] but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(A).

4 ITA No.672/PUN/2026 Sanjivani Madhukar Chitre

4.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of certain additional evidences. He submitted that these additional evidences could not be filed before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for want of sufficient time. Since these additional evidences go to the root of the matter, therefore, these should be admitted and he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh.

5.

The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC.

6.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non submission of requisite details the ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,30,07,899/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act which has been upheld by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the asessee that in the interest of justice the additional evidences filed u/s.46A should be admitted. Since these additional evidences in our opinion go to the root of the matter, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the details before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate

5 ITA No.672/PUN/2026 Sanjivani Madhukar Chitre

order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 30th July, 2026 Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.30 18:54:12 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण , पुणे / ITAT, Pune

6 ITA No.672/PUN/2026 Sanjivani Madhukar Chitre

S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 30.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 30.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 30.07.2026 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 30.07.2026 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 30.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 30.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order 30.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 30.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Office 9 Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →