VINAYAK DATTATRAY ADSULE,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, SANGLI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.169/PUN/2025
Assessment Year : 2012-13
Vinayak Dattatrary Adsule,
Koshti Galli, Ullhas Nagar,
Kupwad, Tal. Miraj,
Sangli 416425
Maharashtra
PAN : ANPPA7221F
Vs. ITO, Ward-5,
Sangli
Appellant
Respondent
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated
25.11.2024 passed by Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated
13.11.2019
passed u/s.144
r.w.s.147 of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information about cash deposit of Rs.12,11,420/- during F.Y. 2011-12, assessee was served with the notice u/s.148 of the Act and carried out the assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act after validly serving statutory notices. Assessee did Appellant by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Respondent by : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date of hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.05.2025 Vinyak Dattatray Adsule
2
not appear before ld AO and therefore ld. AO concluded the assessment as best judgment u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act and added the total amount of cash deposit of Rs.12,11,420/- as income for the year. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) wherein it was contended that the assessee is carrying on the business of trading of agricultural products and the alleged cash deposits are from sale proceeds.
Assessee also stated that for purchasing the goods he has made payments to parties and also produced the confirmation and prayed for estimation of profits but ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied and he confirmed the addition made by the AO.
Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following ground :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities have erred in making an addition of Rs.
12,11,420/- being cash deposit in the saving bank account held with ICICI Bank, without appreciating the true nature of the business of the assessee, who is a small dealer of trading in vegetables and also erred in ignoring the prayer of appellant to estimate the income on fair basis.”
Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions filed before ld.CIT(A) and also referred to the paper book containing 15 pages which contains the copies of bank statement, receipt and payment account, cash withdrawals made from bank, documents submitted before the lower authorities and the confirmation letters from the vendors from whom the assessee has purchased the agricultural products. He however fairly submitted that profit of approximately 20% may be estimated on the turnover of the assessee. Vinyak Dattatray Adsule
3
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee had deposited sum of Rs.12,11,420/- in his saving bank account held with ICICI bank. Assessee remained non compliant before ld. AO. The documents furnished before the ld.CIT(A) and before us to prove that the assessee is carrying on the business are not substantiated by credible evidence. The confirmation letters are by two individuals without copies of their PAN, Aadhar or any Affidavit. However, copies of bank statement indicate that there have been withdrawals also on various dates and transactions are spread across the year and the peak balance in the bank is not exceeding Rs.3.00
lakh at any point of time. We therefore taking a liberal approach and being fair to both the parties accept the contention of the assessee that the alleged receipts are on account of sale proceeds of agricultural products. However, in absence of proper documents, we estimate the income
@25% of the alleged gross receipts of Rs.12,11,420/- and estimate income of the assessee at Rs.3,02,855/- and give part relief to the assessee. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 13th May, 2025. Satish
Vinyak Dattatray Adsule
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
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,
//// Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.