ASHWIN KUMAR RATH,PUNE vs. DCIT (INVESTIGATION) CIRCLE 12, PUNE

ITA 791/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashwin Kumar Rath, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune against the order of the National Faceless Appellate Authority (NFAC), Delhi, which stemmed from an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The original assessment order made additions totaling Rs.14,64,297/-, including Rs.8,13,827/- under salary, Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 69A, and Rs.2,50,470/- for rental income. The assessee had initially not filed a return for AY 2018-19, but filed one after a notice under Section 148, declaring an income of Rs.17,77,660/-. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs.8,13,827/- related to salary income. The current appeal before the ITAT concerns the remaining additions of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,470/-.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 69A was not called for. Upon verification of bank statements, it was found that the transactions were indeed transfers between the assessee's Deutsche Bank and ICICI Bank accounts, occurring on 21.08.2018 and 22.01.2019. The source of these funds was the assessee's salary income, and tax had been deducted at source on this salary. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) was reversed, and the addition was deleted. Regarding the rental income of Rs.2,50,470/-, the assessee fairly accepted earning it. The Tribunal ruled that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act barring a taxpayer from claiming the 30% standard deduction on rental income, even if the return of income was not filed. The standard deduction of 30% was calculated at Rs.75,141/-. The addition was deleted to this extent, and the remaining amount of Rs.1,75,329/- was sustained. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act is justified, considering the assessee's contention that it represents a transfer between the assessee's own bank accounts. 2. Whether the assessee is eligible for a standard deduction of 30% under Section 24 of the Act on the rental income of Rs.2,50,470/-, even if the return of income was not initially filed. Assessee's arguments: The addition of Rs.4,00,000/- is unwarranted as it was a mere transfer between the assessee's ICICI and Deutsche bank accounts, sourced from salary income. Regarding rental income, the assessee accepts earning it but argues that the Assessing Officer failed to allow the statutory 30% standard deduction under Section 24. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Khanolkar, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 26.12.2025 of NFAC, Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 26.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The grievance of the assessee is against the addition u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.4.00 lakh and addition for rental income assessed under the head income from other sources at Rs.2,50,470/-.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and employed with Acconia Cube Pvt. Ltd. from April 2018 to December 2018 and that Brands International Pvt. Ltd. from J

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 15,187 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →