SHEETAL KISHINCHAND TEJWANI,PUNE vs. CIT(A) CIRCLE 8, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 537/PUN/2025Status: HeardITAT Pune21 January 2026AY 2014-157 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in sustaining an addition of Rs. 77,62,097/- out of the total addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,05,04,977/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The CIT(A) granted partial relief.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the treatment of cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained. The assessee contended that the deposits were from sale of cars and duly recorded, while the revenue argued otherwise.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.12.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the name of the assessee was called. No application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was fixed for a number of time and no one was appearing. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 30.09.2014 declaring total income of the assessee at Rs.11,77,387/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for limited purpose. The reason of selection for scrutiny is large amount of sundry creditors and cash deposits in savings bank account which is more than the turnover. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee and subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,16,82,364/- wherein he made addition of Rs.2,05,04,977/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account on various dates.

4.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in understanding the method of accounting followed by the and treating it as inconsistent with the regular method of accounting. The AO ought to have appreciated that the recording of transaction in a different manner does not amount to non-recording when would not have any effect on the books of accounts and balance sheet reported as on 31.03.2014.

2. As regards the cash deposit of ₹7,00,000/-, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the amount as unexplained cash deposit, solely on the ground the same was not routed through the Cash book whereas the amounts received on sale of Maruti car were directly deposited by the Buyer into the account and the same has been duly recorded in the books of Appellant.

3. As regards the cash received of Rs.70,62,097/-, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the amount of Rs.70,62,097/- as unexplained for want of confirmation from the ultimate purchaser of the car, when the Appellant has furnished the confirmation of the agent to whom the car was sold as a common trade practice.

4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in ignoring the documents submitted during appeal proceedings such as RC before and after transfer of vehicle and valuation reports establishing the valuation of the vehicles, by treating the amounts as unexplained.

5. As regards the total disallowances of ₹ 77,62,097 u/s 68, the learned AO failed to appreciate without prejudice to all the evidences and documents placed on record by the Appellant, that the cars sold were transferred to the buyers during the year and Appellant received no other form of consideration for the market value of the cars other than the cash received which was deposited in the bank of the Appellant.

6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the ground either before or at the time of hearing, as may be necessary.

6.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-substantiation of the nature of cash deposited in the bank account, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,05,04,977/-. We find based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC granted part relief to the assessee, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustaining the addition of Rs.77,62,097/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,05,04,977/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC after considering the submissions made by the assessee in a detailed speaking order has granted part relief to the assessee. Nothing more has been brought to our notice to take a different view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →