ARUN RAVAN PATIL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2118/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the assessee's contentions regarding duplicate entries, business receipts, and the applicability of Section 44AD.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 69A for unexplained cash and cheque deposits in bank accounts. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO for unexplained bank deposits are justified, and if the assessee is eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 151A,Section 148A,Section 44AD,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar-

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2118/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Arun Ravan Patil, Income Tax Officer, Near Gram Panchayat Ward-1, Dhule Vs. Karyalay, Gartad, Dhule-424211 Maharashtra PAN-AUWPP4112C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke (through virtual) Department by : Shri Dayanand Jawalikar- Addl.CIT (virtual) Date of hearing : 12-05-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 08-07-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO, of Rs. 2,51,84,876/- u/s 69A of the ITA, 1961 for cash and cheque deposits in appellant's Current and Saving Bank A/c held with the Hasti Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2. Appellant contends that the order passed by the learneti AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 1448 of the ITA, 1961 is invalid and bad in law, as it is based on the notice u/s 148 of the

2 ITA No.2118/PUN/2025

ITA, 1961 issued by the learned jurisdictional AO, instead of the learned faceless AO, which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151A of the ITA, 1961. 3. Appellant contends that the order passed by the learned AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 1448 of the ITA, 1961 is invalid and bad in law, as the re-assessment proceeding is completed without serving appellant notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961 along-with order u/s 148A(d) of the ITA, 1961. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on fac:: in sustaining the addition of Rs. 54,87,203/- and Rs. 50,000/- for credit entries in appellant's Current and Saving Bank. A/c respectively, held with the Hasti Co-op. Bank Ltd., out of total addition of Rs. 2,51,84,876/ made by the learned AO. The learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that the said entries are the reversal entries and therefore the addition o Rs. 55,37,203/- is uncalled for. 5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of R 1,30,500/- and Rs. 11,000/- for cash deposit in appellant's Current and Saving Bank A respectively held with the Hasti Co-op. Bank Ltd., out of total addition of 2,51,84,876/- made by the learned AO. The learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to ha appreciated that the said cash deposit by appellant is out of cash withdrawal from ti to time and from appellant's past savir gs and therefore the addition of Rs. 1,41,500, uncalled for. 6. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs 15,000/- for credit entry in appellant's Saving Bank A/c held with the Hasti Co-op. Bank Ltd., out of total addition of Rs. 2,51,84,876/- made by the learned AO. The learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that the said entry pertains to the amount transferred from appellant's. Current A/c held with the Hasti Co-op. Bank Ltd. and therefore the addition of Rs. 15,000/- is uncalled for. 7. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in concluding that the credit entries in the appellant's Bank A/c does not pertain to contractual receipts or turnover as no verifiable documentary evidence has been furnished to support the claim. The learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that appellant had submitted sample work orders received from Gram Panchayat for installing LED Solar Street Light and listing of amounts received from various Gram Panchayat to substantiate that appellant is engaged in the business of supplying and installing LED Solar Street Light. 8. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in not computing the profit @ 6% on turnover of Rs. 1,94,91,177/-i.s. Rs. 11,69,471/-, as all the conditions of section 44AD of the ITA, 1961 are satisfied. 9. Appellant craves leave to add / alter/modify/amend/ delete all / any of the Ground of Appeal.

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and

has not furnished his return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act. On the basis

of information that the assessee has deposited and also withdrawn

substantial cash from his bank account maintained with Hasti Co-

operative Bank Limited, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on

3 ITA No.2118/PUN/2025

30.03.2022 after following the procedure u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act. Subsequently notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notices u/s 144 of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. However when no response was received from the side of the assessee the AO vide order dated 01.03.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of the assessee at Rs. 2,51,84,880/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs. 2,51,84,880/- being unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act (cash deposit of Rs. 1,30,500/- and other credits of Rs. 2,46,78,313/- in bank current account). 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee and remand report, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

It is this above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard it is the sole contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine real income of the assessee since the whole of the receipt has been considered as income of the assessee which

4 ITA No.2118/PUN/2025

is not practical and the evidences in this regard, furnished before Ld. CIT(A) have not been considered either by Ld. CIT(A) or by the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings. It was the contention of the assessee that various entries appearing in the bank account were duplicate entries since credit entry represents cheque deposit and the same cheque is bounced which is apparent from the bank accounts however the AO while forwarding the remand report has not considered this kind of reversal entries which are in large number and amounting in all to Rs. 54,87,203/- and were not deducted while computing the gross receipt. It was also contended before the bench that sample work orders and bank accounts were also furnished before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before the AO in connection with remand proceedings which were not considered thoroughly. It was the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee is engaged in the business of supply of LED light and solar panels to various gram panchayats since last many years and for A.Y. 2016-17, A.Y. 2017-18 and for A.Y. 2019-20 presumptive income u/s 44AD of the IT Act was disclosed. It was the contention that due to unavoidable circumstances the return for the period under consideration could not be furnished. It was also the contention of the assessee that after deducting duplicate entries the gross receipts of the assessee were less than Rs. 2 crore and therefore the assessee is entitled to claim benefit of presumptive income @ 6% u/s 44AD of the IT Act.

5 ITA No.2118/PUN/2025

6.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion and also in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the AO in this regard and to produce documents, evidences, submissions and reply in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext otherwise the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus all the groundS of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes except ground No. 2 which is not pressed hence not adjudicated.

7.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 08th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated: 08th July, 2026. Neeta Neeta Digitally signed by Neeta Milind Milind Shirsath Date: 2026.07.13 Shirsath 13:03:00 +05'30'

6 ITA No.2118/PUN/2025

आिेश की प्रतिलिपप अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. पिभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीिीय अधिकरण, "ए" बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ इि / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

सह यक रजिस्ट्र र/Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अधिकरण, पुणे, ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →