MR. ANIL AMBADAS MAIND,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

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 :

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 : 2. For hearing before the Bench, Assessee Anil AmbadasMaind himself appeared on 15.04.2025 and 02.06.2025. Findings & Analysis : 3. 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/-.

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 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 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.

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.