GHASIRAM SHEOLALJI VYAS SHRIMALI BRAMHIN TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 EXEMP NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 512/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 October 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,70,558/- on account of undisclosed income is sustained, as the assessee fairly admitted this income earned on which TDS was deducted and was required to be disclosed. This addition is subject to the grant of TDS reflected in Form 26AS. Regarding the addition of Rs. 8,13,375/- for time deposit, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that it was a renewal of FDRs created in preceding years, not a fresh investment. Therefore, this issue was restored to the file of the Ld. JAO for necessary verification of documents to prove the renewal aspect. The Ld. JAO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide in accordance with law. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on judicial precedents. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shrimali Bramhin Trust, filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the order of the CIT(A) dated 02.02.2026, which arose from an assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the ITO (Exemption) under sections 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue is the respondent. The assessment was reopened based on information regarding a time deposit exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- amounting to Rs. 8,13,375/- and TDS on income of Rs. 1,70,558/-. The assessee failed to appear during assessment proceedings, leading to a best judgment assessment with additions for the unexplained time deposit and undisclosed income as per Form 26AS. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous due to a perceived duplicate filing and delay. The assessee contended that the time deposit was a renewal from preceding years and sought restoration of the issue to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 8,13,375/- on account of time deposit is sustainable, considering the assessee's claim that it represents a renewal of FDRs created in preceding years and not a fresh investment in the current year (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 147 and Section 69 of the Act)? 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,70,558/- on account of undisclosed income, as reflected in Form 26AS, is valid, given the assessee's admission of earning this income and the requirement to disclose it (Question of law, turning on Section 68 of the Act)? Assessee's Contentions: - The addition for the time deposit is not sustainable as it is a renewed FDR from preceding years, not a fresh investment in the current year. - The matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo adjudication. - Relied on judicial precedents: Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors [1987 (2) SCC 107] and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 21.03.2025 [(2025) INSC 382)] to condone the delay before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions recorded by the revenue on the merits of the additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69,Section 68,Section 250,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORADShrimali Bramhin Trust, vs

For Appellant: Shri Madhao Vichore, CA
Hearing: 13/10/2026Pronounced: 15/10/2026

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. ADDL/JCIT (Appeals)-5, Kolkata (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 02.02.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Nagpur for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal. During the course of hearing, assessee has specifically mentioned the reasons for this minor delay and being satisfied I hereby condone the delay of 02 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

Grievance of the assessee is mainly against the addition of Rs. 9,83,933/-.

2

4.

I have heard the rival submi

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 →