Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a fisherman, declared income under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of entire cash deposits of Rs. 21,30,000/- under section 69A, stating the assessee failed to explain the source of cash. The assessee appealed this addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits by providing evidence of fishing business, sale of fish, and relevant licenses. The bank account in question was also in the name of four individuals, indicating the addition could not be solely attributed to the assessee without proper reasoning.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of cash deposits made by the AO under section 69A is justified when the assessee has explained the source and the bank account is jointly held, and if the notice issued under section 148 is valid.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 44AD, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
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 22.12.2023 for the A.Y.2013-14 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.08.2021.
In this case the Assessee’s Appeal was heard by ITAT Pune on 12/04/2024 and order was passed on 16/04/2024 by Single member Bench. The Assessee filed Miscellaneous Petition MA No. 63/PUN/2024 . The ITAT order dated 16/04/2024 was recalled vide
Accordingly, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 26/03/2025. The assessee sought adjournment on 26/03/2025. Then on various dates the Authorized Representative of the Assessee sought adjournments. Finally the case was heard on 31 July 2025.
Submission of ld.AR :
Ld.AR filed paper book. Ld.AR submitted that the Assessee is a fisherman. Assessee has a valid fishing license and copy of the same was filed before the Assessing Officer. Ld.AR submitted that the entire receipts are in cash. Assessee has offered income u/s 44AD of the Act in the return. The Ld.AR, without prejudice, submitted that the bank Account mentioned by the Assessing Officer is in the name of Four persons which fact is admitted by the Assessing officer in the Assessment Order hence the entire addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee.
4.1 The ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that at the time of recording reasons the AO had no specific information, hence the notice u/s 148 is bad in law. Ld AR submitted that in the Reasons the AO has alleged that Assessee has deposited cash of Rs.40,09,000/- in the account maintained with State bank of India. Ld.AR submitted that NO Account Number is mentioned in the Reasons recorded, Branch of bank is not mentioned. Ld.AR submitted that in the Assessment Order the AO has accepted that cash Deposits are only Rs.21,30,000/-. Ld.AR pleaded that 2 4.2 Ld.AR submitted that entire cash was received during the business of sale of fish. Ld.AR took us through the sample sale bills filed in the paper book to explain the sale. Ld.AR took us through the bank statement and explained that in the bank statement there are expenses pertaining to fishing. Ld.AR submitted that assessee had filed return and offered income u/s 44AD hence no addition can be made u/s 69A of the Act.
Submission of ld.DR : 5. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the Assessment Order and order u/s 250 of the Act.
Findings &Analysis : 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the Assessee is an individual. He has a fishing boat named ‘M F B Ekvira Prasanna’ as seen from the certificate issued by the Government of India, copy of the said certificate is at page 27 of the paper book. Assessee claimed that he is doing Fishing activity and he has License for the same. Copy of the License has been filed at page 26 of the paper book.
6.1 The Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has noted that cash of Rs.21,30,000/- has been deposited in the bank account number 3124206**** maintained with State bank of India. The last digits of the account number have consciously not mentioned 3 by us. We have perused the statement of the said account which is Ld.AR. It is noted that the said account is in the name of Four Persons including assessee. This fact is mentioned in the Assessment order, it means it has been accepted by the Assessing Officer.
6.2 We have studied the submission of the assessee and documents filed. Assessee had filed return of Income in response to Notice u/s 148 and declared the income at Rs.1,99,986/- under section 44AD of the Act. Assessee has shown sale of Rs.23,40,000/- in the Return of Income. The Assessing officer made addition of entire cash deposits of Rs.21,30,000/- u/s 69A of the Act stating that assessee failed to explain source of cash deposits. However, we do not agree with the AO as the Assessee has proved that he was in the business of Fishing. The AO has not doubted the Sale shown by the assessee in the return of Income. Assessee filed copies of relevant license, documents of the fishing boat, copy of some bills issued by ‘Thal Machimar society Ltd’ to prove the sale of fish in cash. On perusal of the bank statement, we noted expenditure towards diesel etc which Ld.AR pleaded was for the Boat. Thus the Assessee had filed necessary documents to prove source of cash deposits. The AO has not doubted these documents. Most important fact is that the bank account is in the name of four individuals hence the entire amount cannot be added in the hands of the assessee without giving any reason. This explains that the AO has not applied his mind and made addition mechanically. During the Appeal proceedings, we asked Ld.DR whether any additions made in the hands of other three persons but ld.DR could not answer. 4 6.3 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that Assessee has explained the source of the cash deposits. Hence the AO is directed to delete the addition. Accordingly Ground No. 2 of the Revised Substituted Grounds is allowed.
Ground No. 1 of the Substituted Grounds is regarding validity of 148. Since we have directed the AO to delete the addition, this ground becomes academic in nature. Hence this ground is not adjudicated as academic.
In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th August, 2025.