RAJARAM KUTE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VASHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7110/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence to substantiate the cash deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a retailer of vegetables and other consumables, deposited cash in bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A, and the CIT(A) sustained the addition for non-furnishing of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were unexplained money and if Section 115BBE was correctly applied. The primary issue was the lack of opportunity for the assessee to furnish evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 11.05.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESMT.BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.7110/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajaram Kute Income Tax Officer Vashi Railway Station Building, 4th Shop No.4, Express View Vs. Building ST Road, Swastik Park, Floor, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai-400071 PAN: AHWPK2230P Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assesseeby : Ms. Apurva Hire Revenueby : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya – Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.05.2026 : 25.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 20.05.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18,resulted from the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 31.03.2022, passed by Income-tax Officer[in short, “the Ld.AO”].The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as under:

ITA No. 7110/Mum/2025 Rajaram Kute “GROUND 1: ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS - SECTION 69A That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of 12.30,540/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money under section 69A. GROUND 2: TAXATION UNDER SECTION 115BBE That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and taxing the alleged addition at the higher rate of 60%. GROUND 3: GENERAL That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2.

The present appeal arises against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), challenging the disallowance of Rs.12,30,540/- made u/s 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee remained non-compliant and, therefore, in absence of any explanation, the amount was treated as unexplained money in the hands of assessee within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, came to be completed on 31st March, 2022. The issue was raised before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee attempted to explain the nature and source of cash deposits but failed to furnish any supporting evidence. Under such circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal against the assessee on account of non-furnishing of details / evidence.

3.

Ld. Authorized Representative (in short, “Ld. AR”) of the assessee submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A), it was explained that the assesseeis a retailer of vegetable, milk and other petty consumables and therefore, the cash

ITA No. 7110/Mum/2025 Rajaram Kute was collected during the normal course of business, but the such explaination was not accepted on account of non-furnishing of details. Ld. AR of the assessee requested for one more opportunity, so that the assessee can explain his case properly before the Ld. CIT(A) and produce necessary evidences so as to substantiate the genuineness of the entries of cash deposit in his bank accounts. 4. Per contra, Ld. Senior DR vehemently supported the orders of revenue authorities. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the present case pertains to assessee, who is a small vendor of vegetable, milk and other consumables. During the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, cash was deposited by the assessee in Allahabad bank account, Chembur Branch, Account No.50246155758 and Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank in Account No.271101000090. undoubtedly, the assessee was unable to furnish certain details which were sought by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 6. Now, as per requested by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee that the assessee would like to represent his case again before the Ld. CIT(A) to explain the nature of transactions under which the cash was deposited by him. It was the prayer that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to examine the bank entries, in terms of clarification / submissions / explanations or evidence which the assessee would produce before him. 3

ITA No. 7110/Mum/2025 Rajaram Kute

7.

We thus, in terms of our aforesaid facts and circumstances, find it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. Needless to say, assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceedings. The assessee is directed to co-operate and respond towards the notices u/s 250, failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with law. 9. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25-05-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated : 25-05-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →