SUDHIR SUNIL BODKE,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2278/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not provide date-wise details of cash payments made to the seller and his family members. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to submit further evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased immovable property and made significant cash payments towards the sale consideration. The Assessing Officer disallowed the cash payments under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for these transactions. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash payments made for the purchase of immovable property were substantiated with valid evidence to avoid disallowance under Section 40A(3)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3),Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH: B BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA 2278/PUN/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/Asst. Year:2010-11) Permanent Account Number: ABCPB5547J SUDHIR SUNIL BODKE D C I T - 1, DAMODAR NIWAS, KENDRIYA RAJASWA STATION ROAD, BHAVAN, Vs. GADKARI CHOWK, NASHIK-422011, NASHIK-422002, MAHARASHTRA. MAHARASHTRA

(प्रत्यर्थीRespondent) (अपीलधर्थीAppellant)

निर्धारितीद्वधिध/Assessee represented by: Shri Sanket Joshi.AR िधजस्‍वद्वधिध/Revenue represented Shri.Ajitesh Meena. by: JCIT.Sr.DR

सुिवधईकीतधिीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 09-06-2026 घोषणधकीतधिीख/Date of pronouncement: 27-07-2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the (CIT(A))/NFAC passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s 147 and u/se 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

At the time of hearing, Ld.AR has not pressed the ground of appeal no. 5 on the validity of issue of notice u/sec 148 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is withdrawn and is dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Income Tax Department has received the information that the assessee has entered into transaction of purchase of immovable property in the F.Y. 2009-10 and the assessee has not filed the return of income. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the return of income on 31.07.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,53,860/-.Further notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued and in compliance, the Ld.AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the information explaining the transactions of acquisition of property. Whereas , the assesse has purchased land from Shri Harilal Narsingh Jethwa for consideration of Rs.1,43,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 13.01.2010. The A.O. on perusal of details found that the assessee has made payments in cash and cheques/post dated in three F.Y.2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11.The A.O on verification of sale deed found that the assessee has paid aggregate amount of Rs.59,00,000/- in cash and called for explanations and details and the assessee has filed the clarifications. The A.O found the assessee has not substantiated with the valid reasons and evidences in respect of cash payments and invoked the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and made disallowance of Rs.59,30,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.60,83,860/- and passed the order u/sec 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered grounds of appeal, statement of facts, finding of A.O. and submissions but has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assesse has filed the appeal with the Hon'ble Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance overlooking the submissions, information filed in the course of hearing. The Ld.AR’s contentions are that the assessee has made some cash payments towards the purchase of immovable property/land and such cash payments are made out of bank withdrawals of the asssses bank account and due to business exigency and at the request of the seller. Further the genuineness of the payments was not doubted by the revenue authorities and there is no violations of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions with factual paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per contra, Ld.DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance overlooking the facts , evidences and submissions. The Ld.AR demonstrated the details of cash with drawls from the bank account utilized for making cash payments for purchase of the land to the seller placed at Page 10 to 13 of the paper book. Further the Ld.AR submitted summary of the cash with drawls from the bank account and payment to seller placed at Page 10 of the paper book as under:

6.

The Ld.AR demonstrated the copy of sale deed dated 13.01.2010 in particular at page 20 & 21 of the paper book were the payment of sale consideration of Rs.1,43,00,000/- was mentioned and the consideration was paid in cash and cheques/post dated in three Financial Years 2008-09,2009- 10 & 2010-11. Whereas the sale deed was in regional language and the Ld.AR has filed translated copy in english and at page 4 of the translated copy it was mentioned --- “Rs.58,00,000/--Received by seller and his family members from time to time in cash.” We find the assessee has been making claims before the lower authorities that the seller has insisted to make payment in cash, but on analysis of these facts as dealt, above, the translated copy clearly mentioned that “ the cash was received by seller and his family members from time to time”. We find the assessee could not submit the details of date wise cash payments made to seller and his family members also. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances and the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and explanations. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issues to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the open Court on 27th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune; दिन ांक / Dated: 27th July 2026. Abhishek Mohan Digitally signed by Abhishek Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.07.28 13:43:04 +05'30' आिेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभ गीयप्रतितनति,आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, “B”बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्डफ़ इि / Guard File. 5. //True Copy//

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →