MICHELLE YOHAN POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIR-7, PUNE, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3199/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raja Gela Bera, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Thane. 5/303, Devdaya Nagari, Pokhran Road No.1, Thane West- 400606. PAN : ACYPP6948C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Jumale (Virtual) Date of hearing : 06.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 22.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.10.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the AddI CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer - 3(2), Thane (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer), in making an addition of Rs 15,00,000 under section 69A of the Act, on the ground that cash deposits into bank of the appellant is unexplained.

2 ITA No.3199/PUN/2025 2. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as he has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety, and hence, the impugned addition needs to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated ground of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee an individual earning commission income & also agricultural income & has deposited SBN of Rs.15,00,000/- during demonetization period i.e. during 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 in TJSB Bank as per the information collected u/s 133(6) of the IT Act from the Branch Manager, TJSB Bank. Before the Assessing Officer it was claimed that the Opening Cash in hand was Rs.19,74,376/- on 01-04-2016 & out of which Rs.15,00,000/- cash was available with the assessee which was deposited during demonetisation period. However, the contention of the assessee were not accepted by both the subordinate authorities and addition of Rs.15 lakh was made to the income of the assessee on the basis of deposit of Rs.15 lakh in the shape of SBN during demonetization period in the TJSB Bank. 4. In this regard, we find that the assessee is regularly filing its return of income since assessment year 2012-13 and also showing substantial agricultural income since assessment year 2016-17. The fact of agricultural income is not denied by the Assessing Officer,

3 ITA No.3199/PUN/2025 however, since the assessee has not disclosed agricultural income in earlier years, the benefit of same was not allowed by the Assessing Officer. It was the request of Ld. counsel of the assessee that even if opening balance of Rs.19,74,376/- could not be accepted at least an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- may kindly be accepted since the assessee was having agricultural income since long back, however, not shown in the returns of income and has furnished its return of income for earlier years declaring income of more than Rs.11 lakh and also disclosed agricultural income of Rs.2,75,653/- in those returns. 5. Considering the totality of the facts of the case we find merit in the above arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee and accept that the assessee was having opening balance of cash in hand of Rs.15,00,000/- out of which Rs.7,50,000/- was deposited by the assessee prior to demonetization period & Rs.7,50,000/- was deposited by him during demonetization period. Regarding the balance of Rs.7,50,000/- we find that the assessee himself has declared total income of Rs.8 lakh including agricultural income during the year under consideration which was deposited by the assessed during the demonetization period. Accordingly, we find that the assessee has successfully explained the sources of deposit of

4 ITA No.3199/PUN/2025 Rs.15 lakh during demonetisation period. At the cost of repetition it is made clear that Rs.7,50,000/- were deposited out of opening balance available with the assessee and balance of Rs.7,50,000/- were deposited out of current years income disclosed by the assessee in his return of income which also includes agricultural income. In view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.15 lakh made to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the IT Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 22nd October, 2026. Sujeet/DOC आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Sunil Kumar More Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar More Date: 2026.10.24 16:41:14 +05'30' Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.