ISHANT NIRMAL CHANCHLANI,AMBERNATH vs. ITO OFFICER WARD 2(2) KALYAN, KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned a 11-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present all supporting documents and evidence regarding the cash deposits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 37,27,246/- under Section 69A, treating it as unexplained cash credit instead of business turnover. The assessee claimed to have evidence to support the business receipts but failed to furnish it before the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits represented unexplained cash credits or legitimate business turnover, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE BEENA PILLAI & HON’BLE JAGADISH
आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal filed by assesse arises out of the order passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 25/11/2025, for A.Y. 2016-17, on the following grounds of appeal:- “1) The Assessee is an individual carrying on business as a proprietor under the name Ishant Nirmal Chanchalni, The Assessee is engaged in the business of Trading in Cash Crops agriculture . The Return of Income for A.Y. 2016-2017 was adfiled on 13/01/2022 declaring total taxable income of Rs. 452760/-. The case was selected for online Assessment, in response to the notices duly served on the assessee. Shri Balchandra Talreja, Authorised representative of assessee appeared before the learned assessing officer and submitted the requisite information from time to time
2) The earlier Tax consultant show gross income of Rs 683550/- as per return of income. The deduction erroneously claimed rs 109781/- instead of 60410/- and amount of Rs 170928/- towards housing loan claimed in advertently remains to claim. The assesse submits that explanation given to the assessee officer was at the instant of earlier tax consultant which also appears erroneously hence it just necessary to grant permission for filing true and correct income by way of revised return. It is submitted that while passing order 147 read with section 144B of income tax act for the ay 2016-2017 in assessment order 27/05/2022. The learned assassas officar has show salary income Rs. 5,73,770/-instead of 450320/- And also erroneously addition u/s 69A of act Rs 3727247. which is infect at turnover and that too actualturnover of Rs 29,15,270/- and the learned assessing officer bought have taken turnover 2915270 as per book under provision 44AD on which approximately income calculated at Rs 2,33,230
3) 1. The assessee is regular tax payer and had no intentions of evading the taxes on whatsoever incomes. The assessee having acted bona fide and there being no mens rea, no liability is attracted at all.
4) 2. The assessee is regular tax payer and had no intentions of evading the taxes on whatsoever incomes. The assessee having acted bona fide and there being no mens rea, no liability to penalty is attracted at all.
5) 3. We pray to DR0P the penalty levied under section”
The impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is dated 25/11/2025. The present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 05/02/2026. Thus, after excluding the statutory period prescribed for filing the appeal, there is a delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the aforesaid delay explaining the reasons for the delayed filing. Having considered the contents of the condonation petition and being satisfied that the delay was caused due to reasonable and sufficient cause and was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention, we deem it fit to condone the delay of 11 days in the interest of substantial justice.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
Coming to the merits of the case, we find from the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the addition primarily on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish supporting documents and evidences to substantiate the claim that the cash deposits of Rs.37,27,246/- represented business receipts. We further note that even during the remand proceedings, the assessee could not place the requisite material before the Ld.AO and, accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made u/s 69A of the Act.
3.1. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is in possession of relevant evidences and supporting documents to explain the nature and source of the impugned cash deposits and that the assessee has a strong case on merits. It was, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate the claim before the lower authorities.
3.2. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all supporting documents, evidences and explanations in support of the claim that the cash deposits represent business receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) shall examine the same and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite details and evidences without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/06/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai Dated: 25/06/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: ISHANT NIRMAL CHANCHLANI, 21 5TH FLOOR SHIV DARSHAN TOWER SHIV MANDIR ROAD PARANJPE 1 CHAWAL AMBERNATH EAST, THANE-421501, MAHARASHTRA ITO OFFICER WARD 2(2) KALYAN, WAYLE NAGAR SWANAND COLONY 2 MOHAN PALAZA KHADAK PLAZA WARD 2(2) KALYAN WEST, THANE-421301, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026