NITIN LALJI TANK,SOLAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 1(1), SOLAPUR

ITA 2174/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's additional ground, arguing that no addition could be made under Section 69A because income was declared under Section 44AD, was dismissed. The assessee's contention that they were not required to maintain books of account under Section 44AD was contradicted by their voluntary submission of a cash book before the Learned CIT(A). This submission proved that the assessee had maintained books of account. Therefore, the additional ground was dismissed. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence for opening cash balance or for amounts received from his wife, and an affidavit filed at the appellate stage was rejected as additional evidence due to prejudice to the revenue. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,61,812/- representing unexplained cash deposits and Rs. 29,870/- representing undeclared interest income. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nitin Lalji Tank, filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal stemmed from an Assessment Order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information about cash deposits of Rs. 58,42,812/- made by the assessee during AY 2016-17. The assessee had not filed a return of income for that year, prompting the AO to issue a notice under Section 148. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 5,31,110/-. During assessment, the assessee provided ledger accounts showing cash receipts of Rs. 51,81,000/- from two entities, Vishnudas Jaikishan Rathi and Rangrajan Gokul. The AO found the remaining cash deposits of Rs. 6,61,812/- to be unexplained and also added interest income of Rs. 29,870/- which was not declared.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the Appellant having declared income under the presumptive taxation scheme prescribed under Section 44AD of the Act? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 69A and Section 44AD). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that no addition can be made under Section 69A as income was declared under Section 44AD, and under this scheme, the assessee is not required to maintain books of account. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessee had not filed a return of income initially. Subsequently, the assessee filed a return in response to a notice under Section 148. The revenue pointed out that the assessee had filed a cash book, indicating maintenance of books of account, and argued that the assessment order should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 44AD,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 139,Section 148,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Lokesh Gandhi
For Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Verma, JCIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 on 04.02.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.02.2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following additional ground :

“4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition u/s 69A of the IT Act, despite the Appellant having declared income under the presumptive taxation scheme prescribed u/s 44AD of the IT Act. The Ld. CIT(A) failed t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →