MR. SUNIL RATNAKAR GUTTE ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-52, Mumbai both dated 09.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice on more than two occasions. Today, neither the assessee appeared nor any application for adjournment is filed. Perusal of record shown that impugned orders were passed by ld. CIT(A) 09.08.2025 in both the assessment years, which was allegedly received by assessee on 11.08.2025, as mentioned in Form-36 (Appeal Form). The present appeals were filed only 09.01.2026.

Sunil Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 184 & 185/M/2026 (AY: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Thus, there is substantial delay in filing both the appeals. Perusal of record shows that the assessee has filed his affidavit on record, which is not attested either by Oath Commissioner or Notary Public. The affidavit is filed in casual manner. Considering the facts that neither the assessee appeared nor any application for condonation of delay is filed on record, hence, we proceeded to decide appeal after hearing the submissions of ld Sr. Departmental representative (DR) of revenue and on the basis of material on record. 3. The ld SR DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not shown reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning delay. On merit the ld SR DR for the revenue submits that a search action was carried out on 16.12.2015 on Sunil Hitech Group. The assessee is key person of Sunil Hitech Group. During the search action, the statement of Vasant Chaudhari, accountant of assessee was recorded under section 132(4). The accountant of assessee accepted that cash deposit in the name of Smt, Leena Bodke of Rs. 3,90,000/- during A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,84,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 on the instruction of assessee. The assessee failed to substantiate the manner in which cash was earned by assessee. Thus, the AO made addition in both assessment years to that extent. 4. We have considered the submission of ld. Sr. DR of the Revenue and perused the material on record. Firstly, we are considering the plea of assessee in his affidavit for condonation of delay in filling appeal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that copy of assessment order was not traceable in his record

Sunil Ratnakar Gutte ITA No. 184 & 185/M/2026 (AY: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

nor available on portal. He approached Income Tax Department and requested for supply of copy. We find that assessee has not disclosed as and when he approaches the Income Tax Department or when such copy of assessment order was provided. The assertion in the affidavit is vague and do not inspire confidence. The assessee has not come forward to explain such fact, as pleaded in the affidavit. Hence, delay in filing both the appeals is not condoned resultantly the delay is not condoned. 5. Even on merit, we find that assessee has neither filed any written submission nor any evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposit in the bank account of Smt. Leena Bodke during the relevant financial years. Hence, the addition made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) also upheld on merit. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 16/07/2026. /- S/- Sd/- /- Sd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 16/07/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai 3