ATISH ASHOK NAHAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), NASHIK

ITA 1998/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 October 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Atish Ashok Nahar, an individual trader in ice cream under M/s. Nahar Enterprises, is in appeal against orders of the CIT(A), Pune-12, which upheld assessment orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals concern Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. During a survey under Section 133A on September 28, 2017, a diary containing certain transactions was impounded. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 10,60,000/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 39,55,400/- for AY 2016-17 as unexplained income from other sources, treating them as business income. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were unsuccessful, leading to the present appeals before the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transactions appearing in the impounded diary were indeed business transactions related to cash deposits and movement of cash in hand, as evidenced by the assessee's explanation and bank statements. However, due to the absence of complete details for each transaction, the Tribunal found it appropriate to estimate the income by applying a presumptive rate. Following the assessee's agreement to offer income at 8%, the Tribunal estimated the income under Section 44AD at 8% of the alleged sums. For AY 2015-16, the estimated income was calculated at Rs. 84,800/-, and for AY 2016-17, it was Rs. 3,16,432/-. The remaining addition amounts of Rs. 9,75,200/- (AY 2015-16) and Rs. 36,38,968/- (AY 2016-17) were deleted. The findings of the CIT(A) were reversed, and the relevant grounds of appeal were partly allowed. The legal issue raised by the assessee was not pressed and was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,60,000/- (for AY 2015-16) and Rs. 39,55,400/- (for AY 2016-17) as business income, based on entries in an impounded diary, was justified, considering the nature of the business and details provided by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 147). Assessee's contentions: The transactions in the diary are business transactions, even if not fully detailed. The addition of the full amount is excessive and arbitrary; if any estimation is to be made, it should be based on past Gross Profit rates or industry norms. The assessee agreed to offer income at 8% on these alleged amounts as part of regular business transactions. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 133A,Section 44AD,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Sailee Gujarathi, CA and Ms. Simran Kuwad
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are directed against the separate orders dated 24.06.2025 of CIT(A), Pune-12 emanating out of respective Assessment orders passed u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Assessee has raised following common grounds of appeal (except the figures) for the assessment years under appeal which reads as under :

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 10,60,000/- to the total income of the applicant as business income without appreciating the

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 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →