MR. ANIL AMBADAS MAIND,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.144/PUN/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year:2011-12
Mr.AnilAmbadasMaind,
Row House No.02, Shivbhakti
Row Houses, Nashik Road, Jail
Road, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra.
V s
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(1), Nashik.
PAN: BANPM1535N
Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by Shri Anil Ambadas Maind– Assessee
Revenue by Smt.Sonal L Sonkavde– Addl.CIT(DR)
Date of hearing
02/06/2025
Date of pronouncement 25/06/2025
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] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2011-12 on 21.11.2023 emanating from the Assessment Order u/s.144 r.w.s147
r.w.s 142(1) of the Act, dated 14.12.2018. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
ITA No.144/PUN/2024 [A]
2
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.
CIT-Appeal has erred in sustaining the illegal reassessment order passed by Ld. AO and thus, the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO may please be quashed.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the part addition of Rs. 12,28,193/- made by Ld. AO on account of cash deposited in Bank Account and hence, the same may please be deleted.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, or not press any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice.”
Submission of ld.AR :
For hearing before the Bench, Assessee Anil AmbadasMaind himself appeared on 15.04.2025 and 02.06.2025. Findings & Analysis :
We have heard both the parties and perused the record placed before us. In this case, Assessing Officer received information regarding cash deposits of Rs.24,44,643/- in the Bank Account maintained with State Bank of India, Nashik by assessee. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, on 31.03.2018. Assessing Officer noted that Assessee has not filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Assessing Officer provided various opportunities to the Assessee, but assessee failed to comply. Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.24,44,643/-.
ITA No.144/PUN/2024 [A]
3
Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) noted that no details were filed before the ld.CIT(A). However, ld.CIT(A) analysed the Bank Statement of the Assessee and brought out the peak credit, after considering the withdrawals and deposits. Ld.CIT(A) elaborately analysed each and every entry which is appearing on Page No.4 to 16 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order. After analysing the same, ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.12,28,193/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Earlier, the ITAT had heard assessee’s appeal on 07.03.2024 Ex-parte and passed the order on 07.03.2024. However, Assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application MA No.74/PUN/2024. The Assessee’s MA No.74/PUN/2024 in arising out of ITA No.144/PUN/2024 was allowed and the Ex-parte order of the Tribunal was recalled. Thus, this is the second round of the proceedings before ITAT.
The Assessee himself appeared during the hearings. At the time of hearing, we requested Assessee to demonstrate source of cash deposits. Mr.Anil Ambadas Maind explained that he was doing
ITA No.144/PUN/2024 [A]
4
a business of Poultry in the name and style Om Poultry and Equipments. He submitted copy of registration, dated 17.03.2019
obtained under Maharashtra Shop and Establishment Act. He submitted acknowledgments of Return of Income for A.Y.2012-13. Mr.Anil Ambadas Maind also submitted copy of VAT Registration dated 30.03.2014. 5.1 However, Mr.Anil Ambadas Maind has not filed any details for the A.Y.2011-12. We specifically asked Mr.Anil Ambadas
Maind whether Return of Income for A.Y.2011-12 was filed. He could not answer the question.
Mr.Anil Ambadas Maind has not produced any documents to prove the source of cash deposits. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with ld.CIT(A) who has meticulously worked out the peak credit. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by ld.CIT(A). However, during the hearings, assessee claimed that Assessee had paid some tax which appears in 26AS statement. The ld.Assessing Officer is directed to verify the tax payments and allow the credit if taxes are paid. In these facts and circumstances of the case, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
ITA No.144/PUN/2024 [A]
5
7. Ground No.1:
Assessee has stated that re-assessment is illegal. The Assessee has not explained how the re-assessment order is illegal. We have studied the re-assessment order and find it to be as per law. Assessee had not filed Return of Income either u/s.139(1) or u/s.148 of the Act. In these facts and circumstances of the case, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Ground No.3 : Assessee has not added, amended, modified any grounds. Hence, Ground No.3 is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 June, 2025. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25 June, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File.
ITA No.144/PUN/2024 [A]
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
////
Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.