SHREE JOTIRLING PANI VAPAR SANSTHA MARYADIT BENIKRE,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 180/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 August 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence like bank statements and translated financial statements. No contrary view was brought to the Tribunal's notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an AOP, failed to file its return of income. The AO made an addition of Rs. 5,64,74,613/- as unexplained investment based on time deposits, as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investments in time deposits is justified. Whether the assessee's failure to provide proper documentation supports the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sathe, JCIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.180/PUN/2026 Assessment year : 2015-16 Shree Jotirling Pani Vapar Sanstha ITO, Ward-1(1), Maryadit Benikre Kolhapur Vs. At and Post Benikre, Kagal, Kolhapur – 416219 PAN: AAKAS2400B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Sandeep Sathe, JCIT Date of hearing : 28-07-2026 Date of pronouncement : 25-08-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16.

2.

None appeared for and / or on behalf of the assessee when the matter was called for hearing on 28.07.2026. No application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that on previous occasions also, no one was appearing. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP. Information was available with the department that the assessee has made time deposits amounting

2 ITA No.180/PUN/2026

to Rs.5,86,74,613/- in The Prathamik Shishk Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kolhapur during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. However, on perusal of records the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee did not file its return of income for the impugned assessment year. Since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) making addition of Rs.5,64,74,613/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:

3 ITA No.180/PUN/2026

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, all these relate to the addition of Rs.5,64,74,613/- made by the Ld. AO as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

7.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. We find the Ld. AO in the instant case made addition of Rs. 5,64,74,613/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act on account of time deposits made in the bank account, the source of which remained unexplained by the assessee by filing the requisite documentary evidence. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reasons which we have already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee failed to submit bank statements and Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet were submitted in Marathi language, the English translation of which was not filed even before him during the appellate proceedings in spite of the assessee’s request himself to file the same. The Ld. AO gave partial relief of Rs.22,00,000/- based on the explanation provided by the assessee and made the addition of balance of Rs.5,64,74,613/- as no explanation was furnished in respect thereof. Since nothing has been brought to our notice, to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

4 ITA No.180/PUN/2026

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 25th August, 2026 GCVSR Gajjala Chinna Venkata Digitally signed by Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Subba Reddy Date: 2026.08.25 15:04:12 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before 3 JM/AM the Second Member Draft discussed/approved by 4 AM/AM Second Member Approved Draft comes to the Sr. 5 Sr. PS/PS PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the 9 Office Superintendent Date on which file goes to the 10 A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →