Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal pertains to AY 2017-18 and involves a delay of 468 days in filing. The assessee's grounds of appeal include issues with the assessment order lacking a DIN, incorrect additions for disclosed income, and confirmation of additions for unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessment order might be bad due to lack of DIN and that the addition for cash deposits was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient explanation. The treating of declared income as under-reported was also found to be erroneous.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment order is invalid due to lack of DIN, and whether additions for cash deposits and declared income are justified.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 139, 270A, 69A, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
Appellant by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Respondent by : Shri R.Y. Balawade Date of hearing : 30.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 12.09.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act.
Registry has informed that there is delay of 468 days in filing the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. Main reason for the delay is that assessee is dependent on Tax Consultant Mr. Kishor Perne but he could not attend the case owing to illness of his wife and his wife passed away during the said period. On going through the averments made in the affidavit along with the death certificate placed of record, I am satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ 2 Dipakraj Krishnamuni Marathe prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. I note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. I therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 468 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Assessee has raised following grounds/additional ground of appeal :
“1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld AO erred in passing Assessment Order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 27-12-2019 without quoting mandatory Documentation Identification Number ("DIN"). Separate communication dated 28-12-2019 was Issued intimating that order passed under Section 144 dated 27-12-2019 for the assessment year 2017-18 contain DIN number, meaning thereby, the DIN was generated subsequent to passing of the order. Thus, the final assessment order bad in law, null and void and thus, liable to be quashed.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs. 2,55,050/- to income in respect of return income as under reported income under the provision of IT Act and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A whereas assessee has disclosed said income in return filed u/s 139 of Income Tax Act 1961.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- by not accepting source for Cash deposit with respect to cash withdrawn from assessee's brothers account.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, addition u/s 69A cannot be made with respect to cash deposit in Bank Account.
The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.
3 Dipakraj Krishnamuni Marathe Additional Ground : “Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 2017-18 passed on 27th Dec 2019 without signature hence bad in law, null and void and thus, liable to be quashed.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not made any contentions with regard to legal issues raised in Ground No.1 and the additional Ground. Therefore, these legal issues are deemed to be ‘not pressed’ and accordingly dismissed as such.
5. Now I take up remaining grounds. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.04.2018 which is beyond the prescribed time limit. Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit of Rs.10,45,000/- during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, issued the notice u/s.142(1) but assessee failed to file any written submission or any evidence to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.10,45,000/-. Ld. AO passed Best Judgment Assessment making addition of Rs.10,45,000/- to the business income declared by the assessee at Rs.2,55,050/-. Subsequently, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) who partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by giving relief of Rs.4,45,000/- on the basis of cash withdrawal of Rs.4.00 lakh made by the assessee prior to the start of demonetization period and other cash in hand available with the assessee at Rs.50,000/-. I note that the alleged cash has been deposited on 08.11.2016 which is a date prior to the start of demonetization period from 09.11.2016. This fact stands unrebutted and the very basis of 4 Dipakraj Krishnamuni Marathe carrying out the assessment proceedings based on the deposits made during the demonetization period is found to be faulty. Even otherwise, assessee has provided the details of withdrawal of Rs.6.00 lakh made by his nephew Shri Keshraj Baburaj Marathe who is also a farmer and has withdrawn cash from his bank account held with Jalgaon District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. during the period 17.10.2016 to 04.11.2016 and also other withdrawals made by the assessee on 05.10.2016. In support of these details assessee has prima facie made a case of having explained the source of cash deposit of Rs.10,45,000/-. Considering these aspects, I am of the considered view that ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs.10,45,000/- made for the alleged explained cash deposit. Finding of ld.CIT(A) sustained the impugned addition is reversed. Grounds of appeal No.3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed.
6. So far as Ground No.2 is concerned, assessee is aggrieved with the action of AO initiating penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by treating income declared in the income tax return at Rs.2,55,050/- as under reported income. I note that the year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18 and the last date to file return was 31.03.2018. Now prior to 31.03.2018, ld. AO has issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and the assessee in response to the same has filed the return voluntarily declaring business income of Rs.2,55,050/-. In this situation, both the lower authorities have grossly erred in treating the income of Rs.2,55,050/- as under reported income only because it has been filed in the income tax return after 31.03.2018. I therefore reverse the finding of ld.CIT(A) and allow ground No.2 raised by the assessee.
5 Dipakraj Krishnamuni Marathe
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.