PATHAN WAJEED KHAN MANZOOR,SILLOD vs. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER, AURANGABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2158/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Pathan Wajeed Khan Vs. ITO, National Faceless Manzoor, Assessment Centre, 3D Dr. Zaker Husain Nagar Delhi. Main Road, Sillod, Aurangabad- 431112. PAN : AEHPT3043B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Umesh Ruparel (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual) Date of hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 01.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and claimed to be involved in scrap business and has furnished original return of income on 11.05.2016 by declaring an income of Rs.3,00,340/-. On the basis of information received in category of

2 ITA No.2158/PUN/2025 high risk transaction on insight portal of the Department that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.1,28,26,078/- in the bank account maintained with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021. No return was furnished by the assessee in response to above notice. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. In response to above notices, the assessee submitted that due to technical reasons i.e. computer system crashed due to virus and hard-disk corrupt, the assessee was unable to trace the details saved on the system, therefore, the transactions appearing in the account maintained with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. could not be considered at the time of filing of income tax return, accordingly, it was requested by the assessee to consider 8% net profit from the above transactions. Not being satisfied with the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.03.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of Rs.1,31,26,418/- as against the income of

3 ITA No.2158/PUN/2025 Rs.3,00,340/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,28,26,078/- being unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 3. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply, submissions of the assessee and remand report sent by the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing from the side of the assessee supported the grounds of appeal and Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 6. 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, we find that admittedly the assessee is engaged in the business of scrap sale and purchase, since last many years and the assessment orders u/s 143(3) were also passed by the Assessing Officer (NFAC) for the assessment year 2014-15

4 ITA No.2158/PUN/2025 and assessment year 2017-18 wherein the business of scrap was accepted and net profit @ 8% was applied on the turnover determined by the Assessing Officer. Copy of the above assessment orders are produced in the paper book. It is the claim of the counsel of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has not provided any opportunity to the assessee before forwarding the remand report which was called by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was also the contention that the assessee is involved in scrap business since last 12 years and due to hard-disk failure the turnover appearing in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. could not be considered while preparing the income tax return. It was also the contention that under identical facts and similar circumstances net profit of 8% on the gross turnover was calculated and accepted by the Assessing Officer during 143(3) r.w.s. 147 proceedings in the previous and subsequent assessment years therefore, there is no reason to deviate from the decision already taken by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee for earlier and subsequent assessment years. It was also the contention that turnover upto the limit of Rs.2 crore was covered u/s 44AD of the IT Act, & it was fairly accepted that the limit of Rs.2 crore was applicable from Asstt

5 ITA No.2158/PUN/2025 Year 2017-18 however it was requested to provide benefit of section 44AD of the IT Act in the instant case also. 7. We find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the action of the Assessing Officer as well as of Ld. CIT(A) is not justified since under identical facts and similar circumstances net profit of 8% on gross turnover was accepted as reasonable profit in previous and subsequent assessment years. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact and law and also after keeping in mind previous and subsequent assessment year’s record of the assessee and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass

6 ITA No.2158/PUN/2025 appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 01st day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 01st June, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.06.01 17:11:09 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, “B” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.