NILESH NAMDEO NANEKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

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.2604/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nilesh Namdeo Nanekar, Vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Pune. Flat No.2, Nanekar Complex, Near Navmaharashtra School, Pune City, Pimpri Colony, S.O. Pune, Pune- 411017. PAN : AIKPN5917H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Mutha Revenue by : Shri Eknath Abhang (Virtual) Date of hearing : 06.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Ground 1: Challenging the addition of time deposits under section 68 of the Act 1.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition under the provisions of section 68 towards time deposits without appreciating that the Assessee had duly explained the source of such deposits in

2 ITA No.2604/PUN/2025 detail during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 1.2 In doing so, the learned CIT(A) should also have appreciated that the Appellant had explained the source of the time deposits made with the Bank and thus, owing to the applicable provisions of section 68 of the Act, the Appellant was not required to explain the source of source of such time deposits. 1.3 The Appellant prays that the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) ought to be deleted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.” 3. The appellant has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal :- “1. Ground 1 : Challenging the addition of time deposits under section 69 of the Act 1.1 The learned AO and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of INR 5,50,000 under the provisions of section 69 towards time deposits without appreciating that the Assessee had duly explained the source of such deposits in detail during the course of proceedings, being either transfer of funds from the accounts of the Appellant's brother/father and/or cash deposited by the Appellant. 1.2 In doing so, the learned AO and the learned CIT(A) should also have appreciated that, owing to the applicable provisions of section 69 of the Act, the Appellant was not required to explain the source of source of such time deposits. 2. Ground 2 : Incorrect invocation of Section 69 instead of Section 69A 2.1 The learned AO and the learned CIT(A) has erred in invoking the provisions of section 69 since admittedly the Appellant has explained the source of funds and in such circumstances, if at all the authorities intended to tax any such source in terms of credit in bank account utilized for the purpose of making time deposits, the provision that could have been triggered is section 69A of the Act. Hence, the impugned addition made applying a wrong charging provision (section 69) is therefore liable to be quashed.

3 ITA No.2604/PUN/2025 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee and has not furnished his return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act for the period under consideration. On the basis of information received in NMS/AIMS, it was seen that the assessee has made time deposits exceeding Rs.90,50,000/- in Pavana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Chinchwad, Pune, however, return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act was not filed, therefore, 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 on 30.03.2021. The assessee furnished return of income on 01.12.2021 in response to above notice declaring income of Rs.2,80,160/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 04.03.2022 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of Rs.93,30,160/- as against the income of Rs.2,80,160/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.90,50,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act.

4 ITA No.2604/PUN/2025 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee as well as remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the addition of Rs.90,50,000/- to only Rs.5,52,200/- as the assessee has failed to explain the source of time deposit to the tune of Rs.5,52,000/- (3,00,000 + 2,52,000). 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book as well as copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that out of total addition of Rs.90,50,000/- the addition of Rs.5,52,000/- only was sustained by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and rest of the addition of Rs.84,98,000/- was deleted. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the remaining addition of Rs.5,52,000/-. 8. In this regard, we find that on 23.05.2012 time deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- was purchased by the assessee and it was explained that an amount of Rs.56,100/- were transferred from father Mr.

5 ITA No.2604/PUN/2025 Namdeo Nanekar and an amount of Rs.98,000/- were transferred from Mr. Parag Nanekar and Rs.1,45,900/- were deposited by the assessee from earlier withdrawals therefore, no addition was required. 9. Apart from above, time deposit of Rs.5,50,000/- was purchased by the assessee on 21.09.2012 and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- and sustained the addition of Rs.2,50,000/-. In this regard, it is the contention of the assessee that Rs.2,50,000/- were received from the brother of the assessee, therefore, no addition was required. 10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and in the light of the fact that the matter needs to be verified at the level of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to the limited extent of confirming the addition of Rs.5,52,000/- and restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue of addition of Rs.5,52,000/- 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 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce

6 ITA No.2604/PUN/2025 relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of his contention without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal/additional ground no.1 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Since the assessee has not pressed additional ground no.2, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th June, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.06.30 17:24:41 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.