MOHAMMED SHAHEJAN VINDHANI ,NANDED -WAGHALA vs. ITO WD-1, NANDED-WAGHALA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1825/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mohammed Shahejan Vindhani, Income Tax Officer, 4-5-261, Near Bharat Trading Ward-1, Co., Main Road, Old Mondha, vs. Degloor Naka Rd, Chauphala S.O., Hyder Bagh, Nanded-Waghala Dashmesh Nagar, Maharashtra-431604. Harsh Nagar, PAN : ARMPV6890Q Nanded-Waghala Maharashtra-431604. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : CA Govindprasad Mundada (Virtual) Department by : Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03-08-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14-10-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24-02-2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15.

2 ITA No. 1825/PUN/2026 return for AY. 2014-15. The case of the assessee was thus reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dt. 27-07-2022. However, the assessee failed to respond to the said notice. Subsequent notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice issued also remained un-complied by the assessee. Since the assessee did not furnish any replies/submission, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) called for information regarding the account statement and details of other accounts, FDs and other deposits maintained by the assessee during the AY. 2014-15 from Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., u/s. 133(6) of the Act. On verification of the bank account statement received, the Ld.AO observed that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 7,46,15,328/- into the bank account (A/c No. 103305001000049) maintained with Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., during the year under consideration which has escaped assessment. He accordingly, proceeded to complete the assessment ex- parte and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 7,46,15,328/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 7,46,15,328/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, vide his order dt. 29-03-2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

“3. The addition of Rs. 7,46,15,328/- u/s 69A being unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee is confirmed for the reasons stated below: 3.1 On, going through the information received, it is seen that the assessee has deposited Rs. 7,46,15,328/- in the account maintained with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society

3 ITA No. 1825/PUN/2026 Ltd during the F.Y. 2013-14. However, the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 Hence, the case was reopened after taking requisite approvals. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27/07/2022 and duly served on the assessee through RPAD. However, the assessee has not filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148. A final show cause notice on 21.03.2023 to the assessee. However, the assessee has failed to comply with the said notice. 3.2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the total deposits made by the assessee at Rs. 7,46,15,328/- into his savings bank account in M/s Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd during the year under consideration is treated as unexplained money in the bank account and treated as deemed income by invoking the provisions of the section 69A of the Act. 4. The AO rightly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)for concealment of income. 5. In the result, the appeal filed belatedly is rejected and the addition made u/s 69A is confirmed.”

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the condonation of delay of 136 days in filing the appeal without assigning cogent and speaking reasons, ignoring the bonafide explanation that the Appellant was unaware of the e-proceedings and faceless assessment procedure, came to know of the assessment order only upon initiation of recovery proceedings in August 2023, and that ignorance of legal procedure, newly introduced by statue constitutes sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay and simultaneously confirming the addition u/s 69A on merits, without granting the Appellant any opportunity to substantiate his case on merits, thereby causing grave prejudice and violating the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld. FAO and the Ld. CIT(A) both erred in invoking and upholding Section 69A of the Act by treating the entire cash deposits of Rs. 7,46,15,328/- as unexplained money, completely ignoring the Appellant's established business as a commission agent dealing in sugar, where cash receipts from customers and corresponding payments to sugar traders/factories are an inherent feature of the trade, and the source of deposits thus stands fully explained as business throughput. 4. The Ld. FAO gravely erred in treating the entire credit side of the bank account i.e. Rs. 7,46,15,328/- as income without considering the corresponding debit entries reflecting payments made to various sugar traders, factories and suppliers on behalf of customers, thereby taxing gross business receipts instead of the net commission income, in complete disregard of the matching principle and the commercial nature of the transactions.”

4 ITA No. 1825/PUN/2026 of hearing issued by him. We find that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal. Before us, Ld.AR has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional, but resulted owing to the reason that the assessee was unaware of the e-proceedings and faceless assessment procedure and came to know of the assessment order only upon initiation of recovery proceedings in August, 2023 and, therefore, there was a sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay. However, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the assessee‟s request for condonation of delay without passing the speaking order. So far as the addition of Rs. 7,46,15,328/- u/s. 69A is concerned, he submitted that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has simply narrated the facts of the case and endorsed the findings of the Ld.AO without himself dwelling into the merits of the case. His order is therefore, a cryptic one and a non-speaking order. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the relevant extract of which is reproduced above, we tend to agree with the contention of the assessee. The Ld.DR has fairly conceded with the above submission of the Ld.AR.

5 ITA No. 1825/PUN/2026 shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14-10-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (ASTHA CHANDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 14-10-2026 TNMM

आिेश की प्रदिदिदप अग्रेदिि / Copy of the Order is forwarded to: l. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „B‟ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईि / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar // True Copy // Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar More More Date: 2026.10.24 13:18:18 +05'30' Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune