ANAND SHANTARAM BANDEKAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1)(2), MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.1444/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Anand Shantaram Bandekar Income Tax Officer Ward 34(1)(2), 13, Velhal Niwas, St. Xavier Mumbai Room No:804, 8th floor, Kautilya Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Vs. PAN: AEMPB3345K Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar Assesseeby : Shri Paresh Deshgpande (Sr. DR) Revenueby : 05.05.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: Thecaptioned appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.12.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18 arises from assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 18.12.2019 passed by Income Tax Officer Ward 34(1)(2), Mumbai. The grounds of appeal are as under:

ITA No. 1444/Mum/2026 Anand Shantaram Bandekar “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Ld. Assessing officer (AO) in allowing the addition without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law as it violates the principle of natural justice and without a personal hearing. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO in allowing the addition of Rs. 11,04,000/-, without appreciating the fact that the money was withdrawn from the Appellant's own bank account and later on deposited back in the same year from the same withdrawals. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the submissions of the Appellant and passing a mechanical order with regard to the money deposited in the bank account from prior withdrawals without any discussion on the contentions, evidences and submissions made by the Appellant.” 2. Briefly stated, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS which is completed with three additions – (i) Addition on account of salary income for Rs.3,16,300/- as per Form 16 of the assessee, which as per AO was not considered by the assessee while filing of the return of income and further there was no explanation by the assessee before the AO. (ii) Addition on account of source of funds raised for addition of immovable property amounting to Rs.12,75,000/-, which is stated by the assessee to be out of available balance in savings bank account. However, it was not explained before the AO about the nature and source of such amounts lying in the savings account of the assessee.

ITA No. 1444/Mum/2026 Anand Shantaram Bandekar (iii) Addition on account of cash deposit amounting to Rs.11,04,000/- during the month of November, 2016 for which no plausible explanation could be furnished by the assessee before the AO. 3. To challenge the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the two additions qua the addition on account of salary income and addition regarding the source of funds in assessee’s savings account being used for the purpose of acquisition of property, Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the grounds of appeal of the assessee. The only issue remains before us is regarding additions made on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee for Rs.11,04,000/-. 4. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee furnished the details of cash withdrawals and cash deposits along with additional evidence to substantiate the genuineness of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Since, such information was not furnished before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A), the addition was made and confirmed by those authorities. It was the submission that the assessee agrees to demonstrate the nature and source of cash deposits made for Rs.11,04,000/- during the demonetization period, if the matter is restored back to the file of AO for verification and fresh adjudication. 5. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue though has supported the orders of revenue authorities, but not objected to the request of assessee to set aside the matter back to the file of AO for verification of additional evidence and adjudication afresh of the issue in dispute. 3

ITA No. 1444/Mum/2026 Anand Shantaram Bandekar 6. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee furnished additional evidence, which needs to be looked into by the revenue authorities, so as to consider the contetionsof assessee qua the cash deposits during the demonetization period, that those are duly explained and are from genuine sources. We, thus, in the interest of justice, as agreed by both the parties, deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set aside proceedings.The assessee is also directed to assist the Ld. AO during the set aside proceedings by furnish all the necessary evidence to substantiate the contentions raised. 7. In result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 07-05-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KHODPIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated : 07-05-2026. Ankit, Sr. PS

ITA No. 1444/Mum/2026 Anand Shantaram Bandekar

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