MAHESH DATTAGURU KUNTE,SINDHUDURG vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 285/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 March 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an advocate, did not file a return of income for AY 2013-14. Information regarding cash deposits was received, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 14,46,277/-. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence should be admitted and the case restored for de-novo adjudication based on the provided documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Hearing: 12.03.2025

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Additional CIT Date of hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of : 26.03.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC dated 11.12.2024 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is arising out of Assessment Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 17.09.2021.

2.

When the case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However an application dated 06.03.2025 has been filed on 10.03.2025 requesting for admission of additional evidence under rule 29 of the ITAT rules. Considering the facts of the case we proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

3.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits made by the Appellant/assessee, was the amounts handed over by his clients to defray legal expenses of the clients.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction of handing over cash by the clients and the subsequent deposit in bank, had taken place in a rural area where transactions happen predominantly in cash.

3. It is submitted that the Appellant has obtained confirmations from his clients and the appellant relies upon the same.

4. It is further submitted that the Appellant has collated his bank statements, evidencing the manner of cash deposits/withdrawal and the appellant relies upon the same

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeals.

4.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee did not file any return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Information about cash deposit of Rs. 10,29,000/-, time deposit of Rs. 2,00,277/- and deposit of cash in other Bank at Rs. 2,17,000/- was received. Assessment proceedings were carried out. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was stated that assessee is an Advocate and Consultant and carries Legal Profession. Certain submissions were given to explain the source of cash/time deposit but Ld. AO was not satisfied and he made the addition of Rs. 14,46,277/- The assessee challenged the addition before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed.

5.

Before us the assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith certain additional evidences to explain the source of cash deposit including the confirmation letters from three persons namely Vidyadhar Purushottam Apte, Shri Shripad Manohar Mondkar and Shri Vasant Dattatray Apte. These additional evidences are forming part of the Paper Book running into 18 pages.

6.

We find that admission of these additional evidences is necessary for assessing the correct income of the assessee. We therefore admit the additional evidences and restore the issue raised on merits of the case relating to additions of Rs. 14,46,277/- to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo adjudication to be carried out after examining the additional evidence and granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 26th day of March, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →