SUDESH RAMCHANDRA KASAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 6878/MUM/2024
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12)

Sudesh Ramchandra Kasar
Room No. 04, M H Chawl,
Hanuman Tekadi
Kajupada, Borivali (E),
Mumbai-400066
v/s.
बिधम
ITO – 42(1)(5)
Room No. 734, 7th Floor,
Kautilya Bhavan, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AIGPK2873B
Appellant/अपीलधर्थी
..
Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by:
Shri Jay Bhansali
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by:
Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing
13.05.2025
घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement
15.05.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 03.07.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2011-12

Sudesh Ramchandra Kesar

“1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 93,48,500/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. The reasons given are wrong, contrary to facts of the case and against the provision of law;
2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that (a) The cash was deposited by my employer Mr. Mukesh K. Desai (Prop. Pathik
Computer) from time to time in my account and immediately the same was transferred to the account of Pathik Computer on same day:
(b) Mr. Mukesh K. Desai has submitted a notarized Affidavit admitting that he had deposited cash in my bank account and transferred the same to Pathik
Computer account and that he was solely responsible for any tax lability arising on the same.
3. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous merely because the grounds were not drafted correctly although the issues were raised correctly by way of submissions;
4. The above grounds/sub grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other;”

Sudesh Ramchandra Kesar chartered accountant allegedly in connivance with Shri Mukesh K. Desai.
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was also dismissed on the ground that the addition of impugned cash was not challenged in the grounds of appeal. The assessee therefore engaged a new consultant, who advised him to first file a police complaint against his employer for the fraudulent use of his bank account on account of which the filing of the appeal was delayed. Considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income as he was earning a salary as a driver of one Shri Mukesh K. Desai, proprietor
Pathik Computers, during the year under consideration, which was below the taxable limit. However, as per the Annual Information Return (AIR) information, Ld. AO noticed that the assessee had deposited total cash amounting to Rs. 93,48,500/- in his bank account with the Bharat Cooperative
Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. from time to time. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2018, in response to which, the assessee filed his return on 15.10.2018. An affidavit has also been filed by his employer, Shri Mukesh K. Desai,
Properator Pathik Computers, wherein it has been admitted by him that the cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account belonged to him and the same was transferred to the bank account of his proprietor concern to M/s. Pathik
Computer, and that he was solely responsible for the same. However, Ld. AO

P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2011-12

Sudesh Ramchandra Kesar ignored the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 93,48,500/- u/s 68 of the Act, holding that the cash was deposited in the assessee’s bank account and therefore taxable in his hands.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the grounds of appeal were not properly drafted, and the issue of addition made by the AO u/s 68 was not raised in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated
03.07.2024. 6. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Ld.
AR has explained before us that the assessee’s case was not properly handled as the chartered accountant was working on the advice of his employer, Shri
Mukesh K Desai, who had actually deposited the impugned cash in the assessee’s bank account, and thereafter, transferred the same to the account of his proprietary concern, M/s. Pathik Computers. It has been argued that by Ld.
AR that in view of the affidavit of Shri Mukesh K. Desai as well as the details of the bank statements, evidencing transfer of unaccounted cash to the account of M/s. Pathik Computer, the addition should not have been made in the assessee’s hands by Ld. AO.
7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that since the cash was deposited in the assessee’s bank account, the addition has rightly been made in the hands of the assessee.

P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2011-12

Sudesh Ramchandra Kesar

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
दिन ुंक /Date 15.05.2025
अननकेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो
आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

P a g e | 6
A.Y. 2011-12

Sudesh Ramchandra Kesar

सत्यानित प्रनत ////
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt.