MR. DINESH SHANTARAM BANKHELE,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 321/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a return and had contractual receipts with a declared net profit. While the cash deposits were not sufficiently explained, the Tribunal held that they should be assessed as business receipts. The addition was restricted to 10% of the net profit, amounting to Rs. 2,35,000/-, to meet the larger interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which upheld the Assessing Officer's initiation of proceedings under Section 148/147, adding cash/time deposits of Rs. 23.50 lakhs. The assessee had not filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits, even if not fully explained, should be assessed as business receipts when the assessee has declared business income. The extent of addition for unexplained cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.03.2024Pronounced: 02.05.2024

The Income Tax Officer, Mr. Dinesh Shantaram Ward – 10(1), Pratyashkar Bankhele, A/P Manchar, Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Tal-Ambergaon, PUNE. vs. Nr. Akurdi Rly. Station, PIN – 410 503. Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pune. Maharashtra. PIN – 411 044. PAN AQGPB6082M Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Abhay A. Avchat For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore, Mysore’s Din and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1059427959(1), dated 05.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)'s impugned lower appellate order, affirming

2 ITA.No.321/PUN./2024 Assessing Officer’s initiation sec.148/147 proceedings therby adding cash/time deposits of Rs.23.50 lakhs; has been passed ex-parte.

3.

Learned DR vehemently argued that the assessee has been non-cooperative all along wherein he had not even filed his return in response to sec.148 notice issued by the assessing authority.

4.

Faced with this situation, I note that the assessee had made a categorical submission in his ground(s) before the Ld. CIT(A) that his return had been duly filed on 17.12.2018. The CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in para 6.1 pages 5 to 6 has duly taken note of the corresponding e-verification on 28.12.2018. It has been further observed that the assessee had contractual receipts of Rs.23,65,140/- followed by net profit declaration of Rs.2,13,075/-. All these facts forms sufficient material to indicate that the assessee has been carrying-out contractor business and therefore, the impugned cash deposits; although not sufficiently explained; deserve assessment as his business receipts only. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that larger interest of justice would be met in case the foregoing cash deposits @ 10% net profit coming to Rs.2,35,000/- are assessed with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Necessary

3 ITA.No.321/PUN./2024 computation shall follow as per law. The impugned addition of Rs.23.50 lakhs is upheld to the extent of Rs.2,35,000/- only in otherwords. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →