MACHINDRA BABURAO SUKE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(3), PUNE

Registry has informed that there is delay of 214 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation application, I am satisfied that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. I note that the Appellant by : Shri Amit Kumar (through virtual) Respondent by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 18.09.2025 Machindra Baburao Suke

Assessee has raised as many as 15 grounds of appeal raising various issues which revolve around the following three additions confirmed by ld.CIT(A) :

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Trading in Petroleum Products of BPCL under the name M/s.Sahyadri Service Station. Income of Rs.7,71,120/- declared in the e- return for A.Y. 2017-18 filed on 22.01.2018. After the case selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by validly serving statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) ld. Assessing Officer carried out the proceedings. During the year, demonetization was announced and ld. AO asked the assessee to match the Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) deposits made during the period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. Ld. AO observed that there is a discrepancy in the details of cash deposited to the extent of Rs.2,35,000/- and the assessee has been unable to prove and accordingly made addition u/s.69A of the Act. Further, Machindra Baburao Suke

Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to various grounds and additional grounds of appeal and also referred to the paper book running into 561 pages and prayed that the impugned additions deserves to be deleted.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal but they all revolve around three additions made for unexplained money/unexplained credit Machindra Baburao Suke

So far as the addition of Rs.2,35,000/- is concerned, ld. AO made addition alleging that the source of cash deposit on 03.12.2016 in SBNs amounting to Rs.2,35,000/- is not explained because the assessee did not have sufficient cash in hand. Before me, assessee filed the details of cash book at pages 438 to 447 and 455 to 470 along with SBN details during November and December 2016 and after going through the same I find that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand to explain source of deposit of Rs.2,35,000/-. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.2,35,000/- is hereby deleted.

Next issue relates to addition of Rs.16,96,240/- which the ld. AO has made on the ground that assessee has been unable to explain the source of receipt of the alleged cash from its outstanding debtors during the demonetization period. I note that the assessee received the alleged sum in SBNs during the demonetization period. Assessee has also furnished details of receivables appearing in the assessment order at para 7. Assessee has also furnished Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account along with relevant Annexures. Sundry Debtors are part and parcel of the regular business activity carried out by the assessee and ld. AO has disputed receipt of such sum from the outstanding debtors merely referring to the demonetization period but no finding is made against the assessee by making the necessary verification of the debtors list filed before ld. AO. I find merit in the contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee. I find that Machindra Baburao Suke

Last issue is regarding addition of Rs.1,65,900/-. Assessee declared Agricultural income in its return at Rs.1,80,900/- and regarding the cash deposit of Rs.1,65,900/- on 02.12.2016 assessee stated that the said sum is from Agricultural income. However, ld. AO did not accept the contention. I observe that during the course of assessment proceedings itself assessee has filed the 7/12 extract in support of the holding of the Agricultural land by his family members. Assessee is engaged in Agricultural business and runs business on portion of Agricultural land. It has also been submitted that during June 2016 that assessee was carrying out farming of Soyabean in the Agricultural land owned by his family. Normally Soyabean crops grown 4 to 4 ½ months and sale is made directly to the local customers/transfers. After the crop is grown 4 to 4 ½ months ends in the months of October/November, 2016 and assessee has to make the sale of the Agricultural produce in the SBNs else the crop could have spoiled. Considering the submissions of the assessee and also considering the amount of income earned from Agricultural sources and the fact that ld. AO has not placed any tangible evidence on record to prove that the said receipts were not from Agricultural sources inspite of the fact that assessee has filed 7/12 Machindra Baburao Suke

To sum up, the total addition of Rs.20,97,140/- made by ld. AO for A.Y. 2017-18 in the hands of assessee stands deleted. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits are allowed.

Dealing with remaining grounds would be merely academic in nature and thus held to be infructuous.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the observations made in the order.

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune.

गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,