ABHIJIT NERURKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's application for additional evidence, allowing the assessee to submit documentary evidence to support their contention regarding the nature of the deposits. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2007-08. The AO, based on cash deposits of Rs. 43,94,388 in an ICICI Bank account, made an addition. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not provide satisfactory explanations or documentation.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained bank deposits was justified, and if additional evidence submitted by the assessee should be considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee u/s 253 of the Income-Tax Act (“The Act”) is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 30.03.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08.
Brief facts of the case are that for Financial Year (FY) 2006-07, the assessee has not filed any return of income. On the basis of information of cash deposit in ICICI Bank of Rs. 43,94,388/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice dated 20.06.2011 for seeking details of return of income for AY 2007-08, 2008-09 & AY 2010-11. When no response was made by assessee another notice dated 06.09.2011 was issued through Tax Inspector. In Abhijit Nerurkar response to the notice dated 06.09.2011, the assessee appeared before the AO and contended that the income of assessee is below the taxable limit, thus, no return of income was filed. The AO asked the assessee to furnish his submission in writing. No such written explanation was furnished by assessee. The AO issued notice u/s 148 dated 04.02.2012. The assessee made no response for the compliance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO further issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 20.09.2012. The assessee again made no compliance. The AO further issued notice u/s 131 to the assessee to appear in person on 08.02.2013. The assessee failed to appear in response to the notices issued by AO and not filed return of income in response to the notices. Thus, the AO in absence of proper clarification and proper reply, clarification and responses to the various notices proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. The AO passed the assessment order on 11.03.2013 u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 and made the addition of Rs. 43,94,388/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee remained unsuccessful in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Further, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the order dated 11 March 2013 passed under section 144 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the ITA No. 3543/M/2016- Abhijit Nerurkar
Assessing Officer in adding the entire receipts in the bank account as income of the appellant.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. Ground No.1 relates to validity of assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he is not pressing the Ground No.1 of the appeal. The ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection. Considering the contention of ld. AR of the assessee, the Ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
Ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs. 43,94,388/-. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in support of Ground No.2 of the appeal, the assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidence. Perusal of the application reveals that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended the assessee was not having a copy of bank statement of ICICI Bank. The Bank had frozen the operation of bank account. The assessee was not able to provide necessary information and explanation with documentary evidence before the AO as well as the First Appellate Authority. The assessee requested the ld. CIT(A) to direct the AO to provide the copy of bank statement and relevant information received by the AO on the basis of addition was made. The AO provided the copy of bank statement of ICICI Bank Account. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that majority of deposits in the bank account is the deposit of consideration of share 3 Abhijit Nerurkar transactions. The assessee requested the ld. CIT(A) for additional time to submit the documentary evidence. The ld. AR of the assessee made the submission. Further, the assessee had filed copy of application filed before the ld. CIT(A) dated 23.11.2015. Copy of letter dated 20.11.2010 issued by ICICI Bank. Copy of letter of AO dated 28.12.2015 for supply of statement of account of the assessee. It was prayed that the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal are relevant and essential for proper adjudication of grounds of appeal
. The assessee would suffer loss, if additional evidence is not admitted and considered. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the assessee has not filed these evidence before the lower authorities. The assessee has filed the evidence for the first time which required verification at the end of AO.
5. We have considered the submission of both the parties. Considering the contents of application for admission of additional evidence and relevancy of various documentary evidences furnished by assessee, we admit the application of assessee for admission of additional ground. Further, we allowed the assessee to file the documentary evidence in support of his contention to substantiate his defense for ground no.2. Considering the relevancy of documentary evidence, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of AO to verify the fact and examine documentary
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026