ASHISH SODANI,PIPARIYA vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

The captioned two appeals are filed by assessee, the details are as under:

(i) ITA No. 451/Ind/2025 is directed against order of first-appeal dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.03.2025 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Unit [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17.

Page 1 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 (ii) ITA No. 452/Ind/2025 is directed against order of first appeal dated

17.03.2025 passed by same CIT(A) which in turn arises out of

assessment-order dated 29.03.2024 passed by same AO u/s 147

r.w.s. 144 of the Act for AY 2019-20.

facts relating to both of these appeals are same as we narrate below:

(i) The assessee is an individual running a proprietorship business

named and styled as “M/s Agro Service Centre”.

(ii) For AY 2016-17 & 2019-20 with which we are concerned in these

appeals, the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of

Rs. 14,28,900/- & Rs. 20,30,030/- respectively, which were assessed.

(iii) Subsequently, for AY 2016-17, the AO received information of cash

deposits of Rs. 6,52,08,395/- made by assessee in bank a/c. Similarly,

for AY 2019-20, the AO received information of (i) cash deposits of Rs.

9,02,88,400/- made by assessee in bank a/c, (ii) investment of Rs.

50,00,000/- made by assessee in purchasing an immovable property

and (iii) income of Rs. 1,08,75,850/- taxable in the hands of assessee

in the form of difference between consideration paid and fair market

value of property purchased by assessee. The AO received these

information from INSIGHT Portal of Income-tax Department.

Accordingly, to examine and assess these transactions, the AO

Page 2 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 initiated proceedings of assessment u/s 147 against assessee by

issuing notices u/s 148 followed by notices u/s 142(1) and show-

cause notices for both years.

(iv) In AY 2016-17, the assessee filed three replies dated 15.01.2024,

22.02.2024 & 01.03.2024 and in AY 2019-20, the assessee filed one

reply dated 02.03.2024, against the notices issued by AO. These

proceedings are acknowledged by AO in Para 2 of respective

assessment-orders.

(v) The AO considered assessee’s replies but, however, made certain

adverse observations and rejected assessee’s submission. Ultimately,

in AY 2016-17, the AO made additions of Rs. 6,52,08,395/- on

account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c. Further, in AY 2019-20,

the AO made (i) addition of Rs. 9,02,88,400/- on account of

unexplained deposits in bank a/c and (ii) addition of Rs. 49,50,000/-

on account of unexplained investment in immovable property.

(vi) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first appeals before CIT(A).

The CIT(A) issued notices of hearing against which the assessee filed

adjournment requests. In the end, the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s

appeal for non-prosecution and upheld the additions made by AO. The

concluding paras of CIT(A)’s orders for both years are re-produced

below:

Page 3 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 AY 2016-17:

“7. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record, it is evident that in the instant case the AO has rightly assessed income of Rs. 6,66,37,295/- in view of the facts of the case and failure of assessee to give any explanation. Even in the appeal proceedings, the appellant has failed to substantiate the grounds taken in the appeal and accordingly, addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 6,52,08,395/- on account of unexplained cash credit is hereby confirmed.” AY 2019-20:

“7. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record, it is evident that in the instant case the AO has rightly assessed income of Rs. 9,72,77,430/- in view of the facts of the case and failure of assessee to give any explanation. Even in the appeal proceedings, the appellant has failed to substantiate the grounds taken in the appeal and accordingly, addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 9,02,88,400/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 49,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act is hereby confirmed.” (vii) Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeals before us.

submissions:

(i) That the assessee-individual has been engaged in proprietorship

business named and styled as “M/s Agro Service Centre” for several

years.

Page 4 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 (ii) That, for the relevant AYs 2016-17 & 2019-20, the assessee filed

voluntary returns u/s 139 and declared correct taxable income from

business, which were assessed by AO.

(iii) That, subsequently the cases of assessee were subjected to

proceedings of re-assessment u/s 147 on account of information

available in INSIGHT portal of department showing cash deposits in

bank a/c but those deposits were related to the turnover/

transactions of proprietory business already disclosed by assessee in

original returns and assessed by AO.

(iv) That the accounts of assessee were audited u/s 44AB of the Act and

the bank accounts in which cash deposits were made, are duly

recorded in audited books of account. The copies of audited financial

statements were filed alongwith returns of income and the same were

available to AO during proceedings. Further, copies of same are also

filed in Paper-Books.

(v) That during assessment-proceedings, the assessee filed replies to the

AO, copies of assessee’s replies are available at Pages 18-35 in Paper-

Book of AY 2016-17 and at Pages 18-23 in Paper-Book of AY 2019-20.

However, the AO rejected assessee’s submission and made additions

treating the entire amounts of bank deposits as unexplained. That,

treating and assessing the entire amounts of bank deposits as

Page 5 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 unexplained income of assessee is baseless, incorrect, unfair and

high-pitched.

(vi) That, for the intervening AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, the facts of

assessee were exactly same and the AO conducted proceedings of re-

assessments u/s 147 for the very same reason to examine the

deposits in bank a/c. Ultimately, the AO accepted the bank deposits

as coming from disclosed turnover/transactions of assessee’

proprietorship business and did not make any addition while

finalising assessments of those years. The copies of assessment-orders

dated 31.03.2025 & 16.03.2023 for those AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19

respectively, passed by AO are available at Pages 1-17 of Paper-Books.

Therefore, it is apparent from assessee’s own assessments made for

intervening AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 that the bank deposits cannot be

treated as unexplained.

AYs 2016-17 & 2019-20 deserve to be restored at the level of AO for a fresh

consideration.

assessment-order of AY 2016-17 to demonstrate that the AO has considered

assessee’s submission and noted adverse findings. He submitted that same

is the case of AY 2019-20. Thereafter, he carried us to the order of first-

appeal passed by CIT(A) to demonstrate that the CIT(A) has rightly passed

Page 6 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 ex-parte orders when the assessee only sought adjournments and failed to

substantiate the grounds taken before him. In such circumstances, Ld. DR

contended, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by both of the lower

authorities, those orders must be upheld. Alternatively, he submitted that if

the bench takes a view to remand these matters to lower authorities, they

must be remanded to the file of CIT(A) with appropriate cost upon assessee.

these reasons:

(i) The assessments-orders are ex-parte u/s 144. The CIT(A) has already

concluded that the assessee failed to give any explanation to AO

although this finding by CIT(A) is not very correct in as much as the

assessee filed replies to AO. Therefore, if these matters are remanded

to CIT(A), there is every likelihood that the CIT(A) would in turn

remand these matters to AO in terms of proviso to section 251(1)(a).

Ultimately, the matters would go to AO fresh adjudication. This will

only multiply the proceedings and wastage of time with no fruitful

result to revenue.

(ii) If the Tribunal remands these matters to AO, the AO would be able to

examining cases fully and the assessee would be able to file all

documents for the satisfaction of AO like books of account, VAT/GST

returns, etc. This will enable proper assessments.

Page 7 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 (iii) The AO has already completed assessments of intervening AYs 2017-

18 & 2018-19 after seeing documents of assessee and for those years

there were no appeals before CIT(A). Therefore, the examination of

present matters by AO would be more apt.

assessee had been non-compliant before CIT(A). He submitted that the CIT(A)

can also make a vehement adjudication of assessee’s cases and it is a wrong

perception of assessee that the CIT(A) would not make vehement

adjudication. Therefore, these matters must be remanded to CIT(A).

of lower authorities as well as the material placed in Paper-Books. We find

that the re-assessments of both AYs 2016-17 & 2019-20 have been framed

by the AO primarily on the basis of information of cash deposits in bank a/c

and investment available on INSIGHT portal. The assessee’s consistent plea

before us is that such bank deposits represent business turnover duly

recorded in audited books of account and already offered to tax in original

returns. It is also noticed that in the intervening AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19,

on identical facts and for the very same reason of bank deposits, the AO

himself accepted assessee’s explanation in re-assessment proceedings u/s

147 and did not make any addition. Copies of such assessment-orders are

placed on record. We further note that although the assessee filed certain

replies before the AO, the additions have been made by treating the entire

Page 8 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 deposits as unexplained without demonstrating that such deposits were over

and above the recorded business receipts. Thus, considering the entirety of

facts, particularly (i) the assessee’s claim that deposits are out of disclosed

business turnover supported by audited books, and (ii) the acceptance of

identical explanation by the AO himself in intervening years, we are of the

considered view that these matters must go the file of AO for an apt

verification and adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned

appellate orders passed by the CIT(A) for both assessment-years and

remand these matters to the file of AO for de novo adjudication, at the risk

and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall examine the assessee’s

submissions and make assessments de novo in accordance with law after

providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The

assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish requisite

details promptly.

in dealing assessee’s cases, the bench may impose suitable cost which shall

be paid by assessee. After a careful and judicious consideration, we

impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- in each case upon assessee. The assessee

shall pay such cost to “Income-tax Department” through appropriate

challan and shall not claim any credit or refund of such payment.

Further, the assessee shall submit proof of payment to the AO during

proceeding of fresh assessment.

Page 9 of 10

Ashish Sodani ITA Nos.451 & 452 AYs:2016-17 & 2019-20 10. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes,

subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in open court on 27/02/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक/ Dated : 27/02/2026

Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 10 of 10