ASHWIN PRADEEP GANDHI,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2121/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 July 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and decide the case accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee introduced capital and made investments in a firm without providing satisfactory documentary evidence for the source of funds. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income for unexplained investments, which were upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained investments were justified, and whether the assessee was granted sufficient opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari
For Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 17.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2121/PUN/2025 Assessment year: 2013-14 Ashwin Pradeep Gandhi, Income Tax Officer, Kohinoor Cloth Stores, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar Vs. M.G. Road, Ahilyanagar-414001 Maharashtra PAN: AHCPG4796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari Department by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date of hearing : 18.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT :-

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01st August, 2025 of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC relating to Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 02.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs.78,84,119/-. The assessee is the partner of M/s. Kohinoor Cloth Store, M/s. A.K. Lifespaces LLP and M/s. Rironsi Automotive. Information was available with the Department that the assessee has made investment of Rs.36,00,000/- and also introduced capital of Rs.2,52,92,858/- aggregating to Rs.2,88,92,858/- in the firm M/s. A.K. Lifespaces LLP during the Financial Year 2012-13. Both the investments as well as the

2 ITA No.2121/PUN/2025 Ashwin Pradeep Gandhi

addition to capital has not been explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 22.04.2020. The assessee however did not file any return in response to the said notice. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act along with a detailed questionnaire requiring the assessee to furnish various details along with supporting documentary evidence. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.65,12,000/- being the capital introduced in M/s. A.K. Lifespaces LLP by observing as under :

“It is seen that the assessee has claimed that Rs.65, 12,000/- was transferred to M/s. A. K. Lifespaces LLP from his current account maintained with another M/s. Kohinoor Cloth Stores. However, the purported ledger copy has not been certified by any other partner of M/s. Kohinoor Cloth Stores. The claim by the assessee thus remained to be confirmed and duly certified by the entity from which such transfer of fund took place. Mere submission of unconfirmed and uncertified ledger copy cannot be by any means be construed as satisfactory evidence in support of claim of source of fund. In view of the above, the assessee's explanation regarding source of fund of Rs.65,12,000/- is rejected and added under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealing particulars of income.”

3.

So far as the amount of capital introduced in the same firm is concerned, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,87,80,858/- by recording as under :

“7.4 Perusal of the above reveals that an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, Rs.41,00,000/-and Rs.46,80,858/- were deposited and immediately transferred on the same date to the firm M/s. A K Lifespace LLP. The entries were made as plot sale receivable by M/s. A. K. Lifespace LLP. Prior to such deposits, the account has not enough balance for making any advance to the firm M/s. A. K. Lifespace LLP. Suddenly, amount of Rs.1,87,80,858/- were deposited and have transferred to the firm with a claim that the source of deposit was from sale of land to the firm M/s. A K Lifespace LLP which is shown as receivable. Without documentary evidence, it is not possible to

3 ITA No.2121/PUN/2025 Ashwin Pradeep Gandhi

ascertain on which date the assessee had sold the land to the firm M/s. AK Lifespace LLP, whether the land was actually transferred to the firm, date of transaction, mode of transaction etc. This is also to state that without documentary evidence, it is not possible on which date the firm M/s. A K Lifespace LLP had invested the said amount received from the assessee for purchase the land for the firm. Hence, the submission submitted in support of source of investment and capital introduction in the firm for purchase of the land could not be accepted and remain unexplained. For such reason, the amount introduced in the firm clearly falls under section 69 of the Act as the same is not proved by assessee. Hence, the same is disallowed and to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, Rs. 1,87,80,858/-(Rs.1,00,00,000/- Rs.41,00,000/- Rs.46,80,858/-) is added in total income of assessee under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealing particulars of income.”

4.

In appeal the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :

“1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the assessment order is unsinged as it is signed by the Ld. Assessing Officer with the expired DSC thereby making the entire assessment null and void. Hence, the entire addition made in the invalid assessment order may please be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the other grounds and on the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without considering the submission made by the assessee. Hence, the entire addition made in respect of cash deposits may please be deleted. 3. The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

6.

The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that sufficient opportunity was not granted by ld.CIT(A).NFAC. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has sold a piece of land in the preceding assessment year which was duly

4 ITA No.2121/PUN/2025 Ashwin Pradeep Gandhi

reflected in his return of income. Further, the amount so introduced are transferred from various concerns. Merely because the confirmation was not signed by one of the partners cannot be a ground to make the addition especially when the capital was introduced through proper banking channels. He submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details.

7.

The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A). He submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee on three occasions. Only part compliance was made by the assessee. He accordingly submitted that the order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC be upheld.

8.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. We find the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act made addition of Rs.65,12,000/- and Rs.1,87,80,858/- the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We find due to non- submission of requisite details along with documentary evidence, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has sold a piece of land and the capital gain of the same has already been disclosed in the preceding assessment year. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the

5 ITA No.2121/PUN/2025 Ashwin Pradeep Gandhi

ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 17th July, 2026 Satish Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.17 11:01:34 +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, ‘A’ 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.2121/PUN/2025 Ashwin Pradeep Gandhi

S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 15.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 15.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before 17.07.2026 3 JM/AM the Second Member Draft discussed/approved by 17.07.2026 4 AM/AM Second Member Approved Draft comes to the 17.07.2026 5 Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 17.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order 17.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 17.07.2026 Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to 9 the Office Superintendent Date on which file goes to the 10 A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →