PINAKIN ARJUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-7, VAPI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत �यायपीठ, सूरत । In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Surat Bench, Surat Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 404/SRT/2026 [ िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12 ] Pinakin Arjunbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Village-Porival, Patel Faliya/ Ward-7, Room No. 810, 8th Floor, Vs. Taluka- Dharampur/ Dist.- Fortune Tower-II, Above TBZ, Valsad, Gujarat-396051 Daman Road, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat -396191 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ARBPP8927F (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, AR Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24/07/2026 :: ORDER :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 25.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 20.11.2018. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly by 109 days, before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the appeal

ITA No.404/Srt/2026 [ AY 2011-12] Pinakin Arjunbhai Patel v. ITO before the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned DR for the Revenue, opposed, the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed, as the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Ld. ADDL/ JCIT/[A]-4, Chennai has erred in law and on facts to confirm addition of Rs. 3.00 Lacs being cash deposit in Bank of Baroda during F.Y. 2010-11. Overlooking and without considering source of cash available with the appellant in form of earlier cash withdrawals from bank, gift from father and previous savings. 4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before me is an Individual.During the year under consideration, it was noted by the assessing officer that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.3,00,000/- in the bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda, during the year under consideration. In view of the same, a query letter was issued to the assessee by the assessing officer. In view of the same, after recording reasons and after taking necessary approval of the appropriate authority, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaires and snow cause notices were issued to the assessee on 25.05.2018, 07.09.2018, 05.10.2018 and 24.10.2018. In response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.09.2018 and reasons were also supplied to the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.3,00,000/- in his bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda. It was noted that explanation given by the assessee in respect of the source of cash deposit was not found acceptable by the assessing officer. In Page 2 of 5

ITA No.404/Srt/2026 [ AY 2011-12] Pinakin Arjunbhai Patel v. ITO view of the above, the cash deposits of Rs.3,00,000/- and credit entry in bank statement of Rs. 3,19,799/-, were added to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. This way, the assessing officer made total addition in the hands of the assessee at Rs.6,19,799/- (Rs.3,00,000 + Rs. 3,19,799). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, therefore, assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 6. I have heard, both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.3,00,000 and has credit entries of Rs.3,19,799/- in 2 bank accounts each. The summary of the deposit is as follows: Sr. No. Account No. Amount (Rs.) 1 3490100008047 (Bank of Baroda) 3,00,000 in cash 2 008601523396 (ICICI Bank) 3,19,799 in credit entries

The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee had received Rs.75,000/- as gift from father and has also withdrawn cash of Rs.2,75,000/- on earlier instances which he had deposited. The assessee has furnished evidences such as cash book, Bank statement and a statement showing past savings. Regarding, the credit entries of Rs.3,19,799/- in bank account number 008601523396 (ICICI Bank), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that they have been received from his wife who is residing in Australia and running a business there and learned CIT(A) has deleted the same. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal only for addition

Page 3 of 5

ITA No.404/Srt/2026 [ AY 2011-12] Pinakin Arjunbhai Patel v. ITO of Rs.3,00,000/- sustained by the learned CIT(A), which may kindly be deleted, as the assessee has explained the source of such cash deposit. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which I have already noted in my earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 7. I have considered submissions of both the parties. I note that assessee has explained the source of cash deposit with documentary evidences. The supporting documentary evidences such as source of income for his father who has gifted cash of Rs.75,000/- and statement of past savings. Similarly, the assessee has also established that the cash withdrawals were from his accounted sources of income and also the reasons for withdrawal were explained and subsequently if the same withdrawn cash was re-deposited by the assessee. Therefore, the deposit of Rs.3,00,000 in cash into Account No. 3490100008047 (Bank of Baroda) is treated as explained income of the assessee. I also note that Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the credit entries of Rs.3,19,799/- in bank account number 008601523396 (ICICI Bank), as the assessee has explained before Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has received such amount from his wife who is residing in Australia and running a business there. The assessee furnished details of the tax returns filed by his wife in Australia, bank account statements reflecting the credit received from his wife and details of her Australian citizenship. It is seen that the credits were actually received from his wife and that she is running an active business which has also been subjected to taxation in Australia, therefore, the credit entries of Rs.3,19,799/- is from accounted sources and thus Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Likewise, the assessee has explained the source of cash of Rs.3,00,000/-. 8. I note that Assessing Officer has made the total addition in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs.6,19,799/-, out of the said total addition, Ld. CIT(A)

Page 4 of 5

ITA No.404/Srt/2026 [ AY 2011-12] Pinakin Arjunbhai Patel v. ITO deleted the addition to the tune of Rs.3,19,799/-. Therefore, now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal for the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- cash deposited in Bank of Baroda. I note that assessee submitted the cash flow statement and bank statement, and explained the source of amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, stating that it was deposited by the assessee out of the family savings, and out of the joint family savings in the bank account. The assessee is a salaried employee and there is no other income other than the salary income, so the amount deposited in the bank account was out of family past savings of various candidates of assessee’s family. Therefore, I delete the addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) at Rs.3,00,000/- and allow the appeal of the assessee.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// Surat िदनांक/ Date: 24/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent By order  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, Surat Sr. Private Secretary  ITAT, Surat Guard File Page 5 of 5