ABA GOVIND GAONKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.4883/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aba Govind Gaonkar Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(1), 3/23 Kondaji Chawl, Jerbai Mumbai Wadia Road, Parel, Bhoiwada, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400012 PAN: AEFPG1594L Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assesseeby : None : Shri Pasale Naganath Bhimrao- Sr. Revenueby DR : 21.05.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Visakhapatnam [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 06.06.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16, arises from the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 29.12.2017, passed by ITO Ward-34(1)(1), Mumbai [in short, “the Ld.AO”].The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as under:

ITA No. 4883/Mum/2025 Aba Govind Gaonkar “1 The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal 1 for non-appearance without appreciating the genuine reasons and valid evidences now placed on record. 2Despite having submitted a detailed explanation along with declarations from individuals who contributed to the cash deposited, the appellate order, like the AO's assessment order, fails to take cognizance of these crucial submissions. It is respectfully submitted that the declarations from relatives and friends, from whom funds were borrowed, were provided during the assessment stage itself. These individuals, being agriculturists from rural backgrounds and in some cases illiterate, are not in a position to provide bank statements OR digitally verifiable evidence. However, the sworn declarations submitted under their thumb impressions were valid and genuine, yet no weight has been given to the same. 3 In Para 7, Point 3 of the AO's order, it is stated that: "The assessee has not produced the bank statement OR documentary evidence OR cash withdrawals of any bank account." This conclusion disregards the fact that I had specifically explained that the sources of funds were from relatives and friends with 3 agricultural income. Many of them do not maintain bank accounts. Their inability to produce documentary evidence should not lead to an assumption of falsity, particularly when they are from a rural background WHARE cash transactions are a norm. The sworn declarations from these individuals were submitted as bona fide evidence. 4 The AO further mentions: "If this information was not available in ITS system, it was not possible to the revenue to find out the unearth income like deposit made of Rs. 20,98,000/-..." This statement implies that the very fact that a cash deposit exists and is not reflected in the ITS system is grounds for treating it as 4 undisclosed income. However, this assumption reverses the burden of proof. It is not enough to conclude an income is undisclosed merely because it is not traceable in the tax system. The AO failed to discharge the onus of proving that the source was income generated by the assessee, and not borrowed funds as explained. 5 The AO has not established any commercial activity, business, OR profession carried out by me from which this sum could have been generated. I am a retired government servant from BEST, having completed years of service. I resided in Mumbai only due to employment and have no business operations OR investments. Most of my relatives are based in my native village and are engaged in agriculture. A person of my profile - aged 68 years, R retired, without active income cannot be expected to suddenly generate ?14.38 lakhs in one financial year without any economic activity. If the AO's view is that this was saved over a period of time, then why was this amount not deposited during earlier years, including the period of employment? The cash deposit was a one-time event solely for the purpose of acquiring a house, which has always been a lifelong aspiration. 6The addition of?14.38 lakhs has been made purely on assumptions, without direct evidence to contradict the explanation OR declarations submitted. The principle of preponderance of probability and human conduct should be applied here. It is very plausible and common for individuals in India to collect small cash contributions from relatives over time for a major life event like home purchase. Penalizing such genuine conduct due to lack of digital traceability in a rural context is against the spirit of natural justice.

ITA No. 4883/Mum/2025 Aba Govind Gaonkar 7In light of the above facts, I humbly request that the addition made under Section 69A be reconsidered, and the appeal be allowed based on the genuineness of the explanation and the background of the appellant. The declarations may be verified independently if needed. Dismissing the appeal purely on technical grounds OR on the assumption that evidence was not filed when it indeed was causes unjust hardship”

ITA No. 4883/Mum/2025 Aba Govind Gaonkar therefore, do not see any reason to keep continue the proceeding in the present matter. In backdrop of such facts and circumstances, in absence of any assistance and representation by the assessee (appellant), it is deemed appropriate to dismiss the present appeal of the assessee ex-parte, which is pending with no efforts by the assessee to represent the same. 4. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue had supported the orders of Revenue Authorities. 5. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal of assessee in above terms. 6. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 03-06-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated : 03-06-2026. 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 4