SUDHIR YASHWANT KADAM,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

ITA 81/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 October 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

On the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel requested not to press the legal issue regarding the Documents Identification Number. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed as 'not pressed'. On the second issue, the Tribunal, after considering the assessee's submissions and the placed documents (fruit purchase account statements, 7/12 extracts), was satisfied that the assessee was engaged in the business of purchasing and selling fruits, primarily mangoes. The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were part of business receipts, and therefore, only the profit element should be taxed, not the gross receipts. Given the generally higher profit margins in the fruit business, the Tribunal estimated the net profit at 20% of the alleged receipts, amounting to Rs.2,69,543/-, which was sustained. The remaining addition of Rs.10,78,170/- was deleted. The finding of the CIT(A) was set aside. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sudhir Yashwant Kadam, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the assessment order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer under sections 144 read with 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2012-13. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.13,47,713/- under section 69A for unexplained money, based on information regarding a cash deposit of Rs.10,84,000/- in the assessee's bank account. The assessee did not furnish a return of income, and despite notices, made no compliance during the assessment proceedings. The addition for unexplained money was Rs.13,47,713/-, and an addition for interest income was Rs.15,569/-, leading to total assessed income of Rs.13,66,282/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was unsuccessful.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order is liable to be quashed for being issued without a Documents Identification Number (Question of law). The assessee argued that the assessment order was invalid due to the absence of a Documents Identification Number. The revenue did not record any arguments on this point. 2. Whether the entire cash deposit of Rs.10,84,000/- constitutes unexplained money and is liable to be taxed as such (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 69A of the Act). The assessee contended that they are in the business of selling fruits, own agricultural land, and have filed fruit purchase account statements and 7/12 extracts. They argued that business transactions were routed through bank accounts, including one held by their wife. The revenue argued that the cash deposits were unexplained and liable for addition under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 28.11.2025 of NFAC, Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 06.11.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The grievance of the assessee revolves around the addition of Rs.13,47,713/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking section 69A of the Act for unexplained money.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee requesting for not pressing the legal issue raised in Ground No.1 challenging the assessment order being issued without Documents Identification Number. The same is dismissed as ‘not pressed’.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and peru

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →