MR. MOHAMMED RASHID TAMBOLI,YERWADA vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2298 & 2299/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Mr. Mohammed Rashid Vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune. Tamboli, Sr. No.106/107, Plot No.3, Porwal Park, Tank Road Shantinagar, Yerwada, Pune- 411006. PAN : ALQPT5303G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue by : Shri Dr. Amit Munde Date of hearing : 24.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 25.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: These appeals filed at the instance of assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 25.06.2025 which are arising out of the assessment orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 framed on 24.05.2023 and 25.05.2023 respectively by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department.

2 ITA Nos.2298 & 2299/PUN/2025 2. Registry informed that there is a delay of 36 days. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed. On perusal of the same and considering the contention of Ld. DR, I am satisfied that the reasonable cause prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the permissible time limit. Therefore, in view of the recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) INSC 382 dated 21.03.2025 and also in the larger interest of justice, taking a liberal approach, and also observing that the assessee would not have gained by delaying in filing of the instant appeal, I condone the delay of 36 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and carrying out the business of purchase and sale of scrap and paper under the sole proprietorship, Mr. Mohammed Rashid Tamboli. Based on information about the cash deposit in the account held with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., assessment proceedings for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16 were carried out. Ld. Assessing Officer accepted that the assessee is carrying on the business of scrap

3 ITA Nos.2298 & 2299/PUN/2025 however, as against net profit @ 3.62% declared by the assessee, Ld. Assessing Officer applied 8% net profit rate and made the impugned addition of Rs.9,00,356/- and Rs.17,90,812/- for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. 4. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal grounds and further referring to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Santosh Jaynarayan Sharma vs. ITO in ITA No.2357/PUN/2025 dated 18.06.2026 submitted that under similar set of facts and circumstances net profit has been estimated @ 2% from the undisclosed transactions carried out by the assessee in the account held with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. and stated that the net profit declared by the assessee is on the higher side and therefore, the impugned additions deserve to be deleted. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. Legal issues raised by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. So far as merits of the case are concerned, I find that the

4 ITA Nos.2298 & 2299/PUN/2025 assessee is carrying on business of purchase and sale of scrap and revenue’s authorities have accepted these facts, Ld. Assessing Officer estimated net profit @ 8% as against the net profit rate 3.62% declared by the assessee on the total turnover achieved during the year. Quantum of turnover is not in dispute. It is also observed that the similar type of cases regarding undisclosed transactions of business carried out through the account held with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. had come for adjudication and net profit rate applied based on case to case basis is ranging from 2% to 8%. However, considering the facts of the present case and also observing that the assessee offered net profit rate 3.62%, taking into consideration the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Santosh Jaynarayan Sharma (supra), I am of the considered view that the assessee has already offered a better net profit rate, therefore, no further addition over and above and net profit @ 3.62% deserves to be sustained. I therefore set- aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and delete the impugned addition of Rs.9,00,356/- and Rs.17,90,812/- for assessment years

5 ITA Nos.2298 & 2299/PUN/2025 2014-15 and 2015-16. Thus, grounds of appeal raised on the merits of the case are allowed. 7. Since the impugned additions has already been deleted, dealing with other grounds become academic in nature. 8. In the result, both the above captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced on this 25th day of August, 2026. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 25th August, 2026. Sujeet Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.27 12:05:24 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.