KISHOR SURESH SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1109/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit, as the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to explain the source of these deposits. The inconsistent submissions regarding the nature of business further weakened the assessee's case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a civil contractor, failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. Upon receiving notices, the assessee filed a return disclosing interest and some business income, but could not substantiate cash deposits of Rs. 4,50,000/- made in their bank account.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account can be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A when the assessee fails to provide satisfactory explanation and documentary evidence for their source.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 270A,Section 271AAC,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Ritvik Vatsyayan
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Renge, Addl. CIT

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 20.02.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 13.03.2025.

Submission of Ld. AR:

2.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a civil contractor. The assessee had not maintained books of account. The cash deposits are part of the business and have been shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the act.

ITA No.1109/PUN/2026 2.1 We specifically asked the Ld. AR that as per submission made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings which has been reproduced by the AO at page 7 of the assessment order, the assessee claimed that he is in the business of construction and development of land and builder in partnership firm. Therefore, we asked the Ld. AR to explain, but Ld. AR could not explain.

Submission of Ld. DR: 3. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had not filed return of income for the relevant assessment year. The assessee is a builder. There was cash deposits, hence, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. There was no reply. Then the AO passed order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that though the AO issued almost 5-6 notices. The assessee only filed reply on 24.02.2025 which has been reproduced by the AO in the order. No documentary evidence filed by the assessee to explain the cash deposits. The Ld. DR submitted that hence addition may be confirmed.

Findings and analysis:

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Notice u/s 148 dated 28.02.2024 was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 on 11.11.2024. The relevant paragraph of the assessment order is reproduced here as under : “3.5 Conclusion drawn:- 3.5.1 As discussed above, as per order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 28/02/2024, the assessee did not filled its return of income during the year in spite of the facts there are various transactions in

ITA No.1109/PUN/2026

the assessee PAN during the F.Y. 2016-17. As per the information, the assessee had made time deposits of Rs. 10150000/- in the HDFC Bank Limited. However, in the assessment proceedings the matter was verified and it is found that the time deposit is renewed from previous year and no fresh time deposit made during the year.

Furthermore, as per the information the assessee had received the Interest of Rs. 49,993/- from Shree Ganesh Cooperative Bank Limited and Rs. 631732/- from the bank HDFC Bank Limited and Rs. 131020/- from the Union Bank of India Limited. Hence, the assessee had received the Interest of Rs. 812745/- during the year from different bank however the assessee did not filled its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee had filled its return of income under section 148 of the Act after receiving the notice under section 148 of the Act with disclosing his total income of Rs. 974976/- [Interest income of Rs. 836166/- Plus Business Income of Rs. 138810/-). As the assessee had disclosed his interest income fully in his return under section 148 of the Act but the assessee had also disclosed his business income of Rs. 138810/- on the turnover of Rs. 612475/-. The assessee did not furnish any trade license of in this regards. The assessee had disclosed business income only to cover his cash deposits in the bank but the said cash deposits is pertains to the assessee not co-related by the assessee in his submission.

Furthermore, it's is appears from the bank statement of HDFC bank whereas the assessee had deposit the cash amount of Rs. 450000/- on 25/10/2016 and 27/10/2016 that was made in cash deposits and the assessee could not furnished any source regarding the said cash deposits. Hence, in this connection the show-cause notice was issue to the assessee on 27/02/2025 with treating the said income as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act but the assessee did not furnished any explanation in this regards in his submission dated 05/03/2025. Hence, the cash deposits of Rs. 450000/- is hereby treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

[Variation:- Rs. 450000/-)

Proposed Penalties:-

[1] It is decided to initiated the penal provision under section 270A of the Act on the under reporting of income of Rs. 974976/- during the year.

[2] It is decided to initiate the penal provision under section 271AAC of the Act for income referred under section 69A of the Act.

ITA No.1109/PUN/2026 [3] It is decided to initiate the penalty under section 271F for non-filing of the ITR during the year even having the taxable income during the year.”

5.

During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not filed any specific documentary evidence to prove the source of cash deposits. As per the assessment order, the assessee had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- on 25.10.2016 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 27.10.2016 in the HDFC Bank Account maintained by the assessee. The AO has verified the bank statement of assessee and the assessee has confirmed the said deposits. It is observed that the assessee had not filed any specific reply to explain the cash deposits made by the assessee in HDFC Bank Account. Even before us, the Ld. AR merely submitted that receipts are out of normal business of the assessee, however, no documentary evidence has been filed before us to prove that the cash deposits of Rs.4,50,000/- were made out of normal business receipts of the assessee. We have already mentioned that even before the AO the assessee had not filed any documentary evidence explaining cash deposits of Rs.4,50,000/-. The onus was on assessee to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.4,50,000/- duly made in HDFC Bank Account by the assessee. The assessee has failed to prove the source of cash deposits made by the assessee in HDFC Bank Account. The assessee initially before the AO claimed that the assessee is into business of construction and builder. However, then the assessee before us pleaded that the assessee is a small civil contractor. There is no consistency in the submission of the assessee.

6.

Since, the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.4,50,000/- in the HDFC Bank Account, we uphold the addition made by the AO in the assessment order.

ITA No.1109/PUN/2026

In these facts and circumstances of the case for all the reasons discussed above, ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 31-08-2026 Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.31 16:58:47 Ravi Kumar +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/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, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →