JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

ITA 1271/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)21 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide complete evidence, the entire deposit should not be treated as income. It directed the Assessing Officer to consider 2% of the deposit as income, acknowledging the lack of evidence of lavish expenditure or investments by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash in his bank account, which he claimed was from the sale of agricultural equipment. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as undisclosed income, as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the sales.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account constitute undisclosed income, and if so, what is the appropriate method for determining the taxable income from such deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT

PER BENCH:

The above three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 11.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. Since identical grounds have been raised in the above 3 appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 19.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.13,72,420/-. cash of Rs.32,25,000/- in his savings account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →