Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shri Chandrakant Balasaheb Jadhav, faced an addition of Rs.1,42,18,500/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts during A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee claimed these funds were collected from friends for participation in a sand mining tender, but failed to provide satisfactory explanations or supporting documents during assessment and first appeal. Before the Tribunal, belated affidavits from alleged contributors were filed as additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the addition. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the source of the cash deposits. The additional affidavits were filed almost ten years after the relevant assessment year, were identically worded, and could not be co-related to the specific bank deposits. No tender documents or sand mining license copies were ever produced.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A was justified in the absence of satisfactory explanation and evidence, and whether additional evidence submitted belatedly should be admitted and considered to prove the source of funds.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(2), 69A, 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Chandrakant Balasaheb V The Income Tax Officer, Jadhav, s Ward-5, Satara. At Post Tasgaon, Taluka – Satara, Satara – 415004. Maharashtra. PAN: AEOPJ3334G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Dr.Prayag Jha & Adv. Pratik Jha –AR’s Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde –CIT(DR) Date of hearing 11/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.05.2023 for the A.Y.2015-16 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
[A] “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal without allowing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee had in association with some persons of his village had made application and had obtained license for sand mining and the money deposited in bank belonged to all of them.
The Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,42,18,500/- without appreciating that this amount did not belong to the assessee alone but was contributed by the assessee's associates and the addition was bad in law.
4. The above grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to one another.
5. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in course of the appeal proceedings.
6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of cash deposits of Rs.1,42,18,500/- u/s.69A of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that the Authorized Representative of the Assessee Mr. Udayan Patil failed to submit details during the assessment proceedings.
2.1 The ld.AR submitted paper book containing 179 pages which were mainly affidavits of some 23 persons. Ld.AR submitted that it was additional evidence. Ld.AR pleaded vehemently that the said Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the revenue vehemently opposed admission of Additional Evidence. Ld.DR took us through the Order of the ld.CIT(A) and AO. Ld.DR submitted that even before the ld.CIT(A) assessee filed appeal with delay. The Assessee submitted before ld.CIT(A) that he has appointed New Tax Consultant . Ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay and issued notices. But again no submission was made by the Assessee or his so called New Tax Consultant before the ld.CIT(A), hence, Ld.CIT(A) based on the facts available on record confirmed the addition.
3.1 Ld.DR submitted that Assessee has consciously not filed details earlier so that time is lost and the AO does not get time to investigate. There was no valid reason for not submitting the documents.
3.2 Ld.DR invited our attention to the affidavits and submitted that all the affidavits are self serving documents without any basis. 3 Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee filed Return of Income electronically on 21.12.2015 declaring total income at Rs.12,45,680/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) dated 20.09.2016 was served on the Assessee. Subsequently, various notices were served on assessee. Mr.Udayan Patial Authorised Representative of the Assessee attended before the Assessing Officer. He was requested to explain the source of cash deposits. Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued showcause notice dated 06.12.2017 wherein, Assessing Officer specifically referred to the Bank Statements obtained u/s.133(6) from the Banks. The Authorised Representative Mr.Udyan Patil attended on 19.12.2017, however, no explanation was filed. Since no explanation was filed by the Assessee regarding cash deposits, Assessing Officer decided the case based on the documents available including Bank Statement collected u/s.133(6) of the Act. Following cash deposits have been made by the Assessee during F.Y.2014-15 on various dates in the Banks : Axis Bank - Rs.1,02,79,000/- Col. RD Nippan Sainik Sahakar Bank Limited -Rs.14,90,000/- 4
The Assessing Officer made addition u/s.69A of Rs.1,42,18,500/- treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. Aggrieved by the Assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). There was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The Assessment Order was passed on 27.12.2017, but the appeal was filed before ld.CIT(A) on 23.03.2018. Ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. It is noted that no submission was made by the Assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, based on the documents available, statement of facts filed by the Assessee along with the Appeal Memo, the Appeal Memo in Form No.35, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition, as no specific evidence was filed by Assessee to prove the source of cash deposits.
Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 29.05.2023 for A.Y.2015-16, the Assessee filed appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Form No.36 on 14.06.2024. Thus, the appeal filed was beyond the statutory limit.
6.1 Hearing of the case was fixed on 22.10.2024. Ld.AR Dr.Prayag Jha sought adjournment, which was granted. Then, 5
It has been submitted by ld.AR for the Assessee that Assessee had collected money from his following friends : o Shri Krishnat Ramchandra Tatepatil o Shri Rohit Ramesh Mohire o Shri Tushar Shankar Gurav o Shri Dattatray Manohar Shitole o Shri Bhimrao Shankarrao Sawant o Shri Jotiram Tanaji Patil o Shri Gopal Mukunda Tate o Shri Sanket Sanjay Ghorpade o Shri Rajendra Yashwant Kale o Shri Anil Nandkumar Shinde o Shri Nitin Ashok Tate o Shri Salim Musa Inamdar o Shri Rohit Sahebrao Nikam o Shri Shivaji Balkrishna Shirtode o Shri Vinod Haribhau Kenjale o Shri Ranjeet Suresh Tate o Shri Subhas Suresh Ganeshkar o Shri Rahul Rajendra Ghorpade o Shri Bapurao Mansing Kanase o Shri Utkarsh Prabhakar Gurav o Shri Shankar Ganpat Kenjale o Shri Anandrao Krishnath Jadahv
Assessee in his Affidavit submitted that Assessee is engaged in social work and have good contacts in the village. Ld.AR read out the Affidavit of the Assessee. The relevant part of the Affidavit of the Assessee notarized on 23.12.2024 are reproduced here as under : “3. I say that, the Krishna River flows near my village. I learnt from the office of Collector Satara that a tender was to be floated for mining of sand from the river at Tasgaon-Kathapur, Taluka Satara, District Satara. I inquired about the amount of fees, etc, to be paid to the office of the Collector Satara so that I could make a reasonable and proper offer.
I say that, I have been engaged in social work and have contact with large number of people residing in my village and also in surrounding villages. These persons have been mostly farmers: I discussed the matter of tender and making offer for the same. I also explain to my friends and acquaintances about expected expenditure and also expected amount of which may be received on sale of sands mined from the river bed near Tasgaon-Kathapur.
5 I say that, I had expected the expenditure about Rs.1,50,00,0000/- towards this tender. I discussed this matter with my friends and acquaintances and explained them that if they desire they could participate in the whole process and the sand extracted would be apportioned among all those who would cofitributed, money towards this tender. I also explained them that if one contributed Rs.1,50,000/-, he would receive about 1% of the quantity of sand extracted. If one contributed Rs.3,00,000/-, he would receive about 2% of the quantity of sand extracted.
6 I say that, I also explained them that the persons willing to contribute money towards this tender may deposit their contribution to my 7 Collector Satara- Name of Bank Branch Account No. Axis Bank Satara Branch 913010039762380 State Bank of India Satara Branch 31012507711 Col. R.D. Nikam Satara Branch 1001005006963 Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd. I say that, I advised my friends and acquaintances to deposit their savings and contribution to any of the above bank accounts according to their convenience. They deposited various amounts in my bank accounts towards their contribution for the purpose of participating in the process of extraction of sand. 8 I say that, the tender documents were filled in and my offer was accepted. Accordingly, I made payments from those bank accounts as per the terms and conditions fixed by office of Collector Satara. 9 I say that, Additional Collector, Satara, passed an order on 20.02.2015 in which he specified the amounts of payment made towards this tender and also granted permission to extract sand from the river bed at Tasgaon-Kathapur till 30.09.2015. 8.1 Thus, the main pleading of the Assessee is that for the Tender Purpose, Assessee obtained money from his friends. Ld.AR has filed Affidavits of these persons which are coincidentally executed on 23.12.2024 and notarized on 23.12.2024.
Ld.AR filed a petition for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR requested that the Affidavits may admitted as additional evidences.
10. It is important to mention here that all these Affidavits have been executed on 23.12.2024, whereas the issue pertains to F.Y.2014-15. Thus, almost after ten years, these so-called Affidavits have been filed. These Affidavits are almost identically worded. It has been claimed by the Assessee that the money was obtained for the purpose of tender. It is important to mention here that till date no copy of the tender document has been filed. The argument regarding tender has been taken first time in the Affidavit dated 23.12.2024. This argument was never before the Assessing Officer, though Assessee has admitted that his Authorised Representative attended before the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, in the statement of facts filed before the ld.CIT(A), these arguments regarding tender documents were never made. Thus, after a gap of ten years, the so-called tender pleading has been made. As mentioned, no tender document has been filed even till date. We have perused the copies of the Bank Statements during the hearing, and asked specific questions to ld.AR. It is observed that on 09.06.2014, Rs.2 lakhs has been deposited in cash in the Axis Bank Account of the Assessee. We specifically requested ld.AR to demonstrate which of these so-called friends of the Assessee have deposited these Rs.2 lakh amount, we requested ld.AR to co-relate 9
It is observed that on 21.04.2014, Rs.7,50,000/- has been deposited in cash in the State Bank of India Account of the Assessee. Some of the Deposits are mentioned as under : Date Bank Amount Narration in the Bank Statement 21.04.2014 State Bank of Rs.7,50,000/- Cash deposit India self 24.04.2014 State Bank of Rs.5,30,000/- Cash deposit India self 28.04.2014 State Bank of Rs.11,10,000/- Cash deposit India self 28.04.2014 Col. R D Rs.8,00,000/- Cash deposit Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara 30.04.2014 State Bank of Rs.59,500/- Cash deposit India self 12. We specifically requested ld.AR to explain these deposits and the name of the persons who have made these deposits. Ld.AR could not explain us. Ld.AR merely pleaded that the case may be set-aside to the Assessing Officer. There are numerous entries of these kind in the Bank Account Statements of the Assessee. The Affidavits of the persons does not specify the dates on which these amounts were deposited. All the Affidavits are vague. 10
We failed to understand why Assessee has not submitted these Affidavits during the Assessment Proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Rather all the Affidavits have been executed in December- 2024 explains that at the time assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A), the Affidavits were not available. Rather it is a story without legs. The Assessee has submitted these Affidavits after ten years, because no action can be initiated against those persons under the Income Tax Act, who claims to have given these amounts.
We specifically asked ld.AR that how much profit was earned from the sand business and how much amount was given to each of these so-called depositors! Ld.AR has not given any specific answer.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is an admitted fact that Assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.1,42,18,500/- in cash in the Three Bank Accounts mentioned in the Assessment Order. Though ld.AR appeared before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, no specific explanation was submitted qua impugned cash deposits. Similarly, no explanation submitted qua 11 [A] impugned cash deposits before the ld.CIT(A). Now, before us some Affidavits have been filed, but ld.AR could not co-relate the cash deposits made in the banks with the Affidavits. All the Affidavits have been executed in December-2024 i.e.almost after ten years. The contents of the Affidavits could not be proved by the ld.AR during the proceedings. The burden of proof was on Assessee to prove the source of cash deposits. Assessee miserably failed to prove the source of cash deposits. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of ld.CIT(A) and ld.Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are dismissed.
16. In Ground No.1, Assessee had pleaded that sufficient opportunity was not granted by ld.CIT(A). However, it is noticed that ld.CIT(A) had issued notices dated 07.01.2021, 11.06.2021, 20.04.2023. But, the Assessee failed to file any reply. Therefore, there is no merit in Ground No.1, accordingly, Ground No.1 is dismissed.
17. In Ground No.2 : “The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee had in association with some persons of his village had made 12 17.1 In the Ground No.2, Assessee has pleaded that AO failed to appreciate that Assessee along with his friends had made an application for Sand Mining and the impugned amount was deposited for Sand Mining. We have already mentioned that no tender document has been filed before us or before ld.Assessing Officer/ld.CIT(A). No copy of the so-called application made by the Assessee and his friends for obtaining Sand Mining License has been filed till date. No copy of Sand Mining License issued by Competent Authority has been filed till date. Therefore, Assessee has miserably failed to prove the averments made in Ground No.2. Accordingly, Ground No.2 is dismissed.
Ground No.3 : 18. Assessee has pleaded that the impugned amount was contributed by Assessee’s Associates. We have already discussed at length in earlier paragraphs that no specific evidence has been filed to prove the same. Ld.AR failed to prove the deposits appearing in the Bank Account and its co-relation with the so-called deposits claimed to have been made by Assessee’s friends/associates. The 13 Affidavits as we have discussed at length above, are vague. In these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in Ground No.3. Accordingly, Ground No.3 is dismissed.
Ground No.4 and 6 are general in nature, needs no adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No.4 and 6 are dismissed.
Ground No.5 is related to additional evidences which we have already discussed at length above. Accordingly, Ground No.5 is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 Sep, 2025.