TOUSIF MOHAMEDGOUS BAGANIKAR ,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD-2 , SANGLI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs.2,50,000/- declared in the return for A.Y. 2015-16. Based on the information that assessee made investment in the form of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.48,61,992/- in the bank account held with Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Credit Cooperative Society Limited and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act as the said cash deposits are not commensurate with the returned income. There was no response to the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act and ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 24.03.2022 concluded the assessment proceedings making addition of cash deposits of Rs.48,61,992/- as income from other sources. Income assessed at Rs.51,11,992/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee stating that the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected as the reasons stated for condoning the delay is not satisfactory. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring the submissions filed along with certain documents before this Tribunal on 17.03.2026 and an Affidavit demonstrating the facts of the case submitted that the alleged transactions referred by the Assessing Officer does not pertain to the assessee as the said bank account is neither opened nor operated by him. The assessee made all efforts to get the details from Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Credit Cooperative Society Limited but in vain. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made reference to the police complaint filed against the Cooperative Society and the RTI application before the Department

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. In the instant case, based on the information that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.48,61,992/- in the bank account held with Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited and the income as per return of income filed by the assessee not commensurate with the cash deposits, case the assessee reopened u/s.147 of the Act . However, assessee has not participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition of said cash deposits as income from other sources. The assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that the reasons furnished by the assessee for condonation of delay is not satisfactory.

It is the contention of the assessee that he not made the alleged cash deposits in the bank account referred by the Assessing Officer in the reopening proceedings and the said bank account has neither been opened by him nor operated by him. Assessee’s grievance in the instant appeal is that ld.Assessing Officer erred in reopening assessment u/s.147 of the Act on wrong assumption of cash deposit in bank account.

From the beginning the assessee’s stand is that the alleged cash deposits have not been made by the assessee. In the statement of facts before ld.CIT(A) also the assessee mentioned the same reason. Ld. Assessing Officer has not issued any notice u/s.133(6) to know the veracity of the information from Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited and merely made the addition in the hands of assessee. Further, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the reasons for delay was not satisfactory. On due consideration of the peculiar facts in this case and the fact that assessee is an illiterate and was not aware of the faceless proceedings, the delay before ld.CIT(A) is condoned.

Considering the facts in entirety, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.Juri ictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication who shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider the documents to be filed by the assessee and then decide in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,