SOMESHWAR NANDKISHOR TAPDE,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 on 24.09.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 21.03.2022.

The Ld. AR filed an elaborate paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that during the AY 2017-18, the assessee was a minor in part of the AY 2017-18 and was studying in 12th standard. The Ld. AR further submitted that subsequently the assessee started studying engineering. The Ld. AR submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee is bad in law as it is issued only on the basis of some vague information and alleged statement of Mr. Sachin Nahar. The Ld. AR took us through the reasons recorded for reopening which are at page Nos. 4 to 7 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that in the reasons recorded it is

ITA No.2666/PUN/2025

mentioned that the Assessing Officer (AO) received information on INSIGHT Portal of Income Tax Department wherein Mr. Sachin Nahar admitted that various parties have taken loans from other parties and he was broker in the transactions. In the reasons recorded for reopening it is alleged that Someshwar Nandkishor Tapde has taken loan from various parties through Mr. Sachin Nahar of Rs.50,00,000/-.

2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that in the entire reasons recorded for reopening, nowhere names of the persons have been mentioned who has allegedly provided loan to the assessee. Thus, it is not clear from the reasons who provided loan, dates of loan, amount and terms of loan. Nowhere in the reasons recorded there is any reference to any seized documents seized during the search in the case of Mr. Sachin Nahar wherein specific loan given to the assessee, Someshwar Nandkishor Tapde appears. In the reasons recorded there is no reference to any answer given by Mr. Sachin Nahar during the search u/s 132 of the Act. Therefore, reasons recorded are vague based on hearse information. There is no application of mind by the AO on the impugned information uploaded on portal. Hence, reasons recorded are bad in law. Accordingly, notice is bad in law. The Ld. AR further submitted that the approving authority has also not bothered to verify the reasons before giving approval. Hence, approval is also bad in law.

2.2 On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed an affidavit during assessment proceedings clearly stating that the assessee do not know any Mr. Sachin Nahar. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee requested the AO to provide copies of documents based on which it is alleged that loan was taken by the assessee. However, no copies of the documents have been ever provided to the assessee. The assessee was not permitted cross-examination of Mr. Sachin Nahar though the assessee had asked for it. The Ld. AR invited out attention to page Nos. 32 & 33 of the paper book which is copy of FIR lodged by the assessee during the assessment proceedings specifically alleging that some Mr. Sachin Nahar had given false information to Income Tax Department and Mr. Sachin Nahar is not known to the assessee. Copy of the said FIR was filed before the AO. Inspite of that the AO made addition of Rs.51,35,000/- which is unsustainable in law as addition is based on

ITA No.2666/PUN/2025

vague information which was never confronted to the assessee and the assessee has no connection with Mr. Sachin Nahar.

2.3 The Ld. AR further submitted that even for arguments it is considered that loan was taken by the assessee, loan can never be undisclosed income as loan is a liability and not income of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made is without application of mind without understanding the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

2.4 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Narendra Samptalal Bafna in ITA No. 688/PUN/2024, vide order dated 19.08.2024 and in the case of Sagar Construction in ITA No. 1812/PUN/2025, vide order dated 08.01.2026.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of AO and the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. The reasons recorded for reopening are reproduced here as under : “Reason for re-opening of the case of Shri Someshwar Nandkishor Tapde, for AY 2017-18 u/s 147 of the Act. 1. Details of assessee. The assessee is residing at Motinagar Latur. On verification of records, it is noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was in receipt of amount which exceeds the threshold limit of maximum income not chargeable to tax, The nature of business activity of the assessee is not known as no return has been filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. 2. Brief details of information collected In this case the information received from the ACIT Central Circle - 1(1), Pune. The ACIT CC 1(1) Pune through Insight Portal. The Information is as follow. In the case of Shri Sachin Nahar, search was carried out on 04.08.2017, wherein Shri Sachin Nahar has admitted that various parties have taken cash loans from other parties through him. Since he was a broker between these two parties, Shri Sachin Nahar has received commission for this transaction. The details of the parties who have taken cash loans have obtained from Shri Sachin Nahar.

ITA No.2666/PUN/2025

Shri Someshwar Nandkishor Tapde who is the one of the assessee pertains to our charge has taken cash loan from various parties through Shri Sachin Nahar. Shri Someshwar Nandkishor Tapde has received cash loan an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- and paid interest Rs. 1,35,000/- during the F.Y 2016-17 relevant A.Y 2017-18.

ITA No.2666/PUN/2025

It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has chosen not to file return of income for the year under consideration although the total income of the assessee had exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax as discussed in para above and the assessee was assessable under the Act. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case less than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration, Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s.148 is sought from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, R-1, Aurangabad u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Latur. Dt-25/03/2021 (Uday L. Joshi) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur”

4.1 We have perused the reasons recorded which we have reproduced above. In this case, it is clearly mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening that Mr. Sachin Nahar admitted that he had arranged loans from various persons to some other persons. It is alleged in the reasons that one of the person is Someshwar Nandkishor Tapde. Nowhere in the reasons it has been specifically mentioned the names of the person who has allegedly given loan to Someshwar Nandkishor Tapde, amount of loan given, dates of loan. Thus, there is no specific allegation in the reasons recorded. It is merely one vague sentence allegedly told by Mr. Sachin Nahar. Nowhere in the reasons recorded there is any reference to any seized document or impounded document wherein name of the assessee appears. Nowhere in the reasons recorded, the AO has referred to any statement of Mr. Sachin Nahar. The AO has not specified how he has arrived at a figure of Rs.50,00,000/- loan.

4.2 Therefore, on careful study of the reasons recorded for reopening, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has not applied his mind and reasons recorded are based on some vague information which is merely one sentence. Even the approving authority has not bothered to analyze the documents read the reasons before approving. Thus, the approval provided is also mechanical.

ITA No.2666/PUN/2025

ITA No.2666/PUN/2025

material coming the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. If the aforesaid requirement are not met, the Assessee isentitled to challenge the very act of re-opening of Assessment and assuming jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer. 13. In this case, the reasons as made available to the Respondent- Assessee as produced before the Tribunal merely indicates information received from the DIT (Investigation) about a particular entity, entering into suspicious transactions. However, that material is not further linked by any reason to come to the conclusion that the Respondent-Assessee has indulged in any activity which could give rise to reason to believe on the part of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. It is for this reason that the recorded reasons even does not indicate the amount which according to the Assessing Officer, has escaped Assessment. This is an evidence of a fishing enquiry and not a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 14. Further, the reasons clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received by him from the DDIT (Inv.). The Assessing Officer has merely issued a re-opening notice on the basis of intimation regarding re-opening notice from the DDIT (Inv.) This is clearly in breach of the settled position in law that re- opening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Office on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. 15. Therefore, in the above facts, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. This view of the Tribunal is in accordance with the settled position in law. 16. Therefore, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 17. Accordingly, Appeal dismissed.” Unquote.

ITA No.2666/PUN/2025

Nahar was broker. In the assessment order there is no reference to any seized document wherein any such allegation can be proved. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the AO is without any supporting material and needs to be deleted. Accordingly, the AO is direct to delete the addition of Rs.51,35,000/-.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 06th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MS. ASTHA CHANDRA) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 06-07-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.07.07 10:37:03 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune