What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's explanation was not fully accepted, accumulation of past savings and household withdrawals could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lumpsum addition was upheld, and partial relief was granted.

The assessee had made cash deposits in his bank account, which he explained as opening balance and past savings. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not accept these explanations and made an addition. The assessee's salary income in the preceding year was meager.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition made by the revenue authorities on account of unexplained cash deposits, considering the assessee's limited income and explanation of past savings.

Tushar Satish Agarwal vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.03.2024Pronounced: 06.03.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.53/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Tushar Satish Agarwal, The Income Tax Officer, 461, Elphinstone Road, Ward – 13(1), Aaykar Sadan, Near Gurudwar Khadki, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Park, vs. Pune – 411 003 Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ASKPA6089M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059178282 (1), dated 29.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. The very factual position existed on the earlier hearing(s) as well. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Learned DR invited this tribunal’s attention to the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in his assessment order dated 27.12.2019 indicating the assessee to have made cash deposits of Rs.8,96,000/- and Rs.1,32,500/-, in his ICICI bank

2 ITA.No.53/PUN./2024 account. The assessee tried to explain the source thereof to opening balance as on 01.04.2016 and past savings. It is noticed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) agreed to the assessee’s foregoing pleadings. They accordingly proceeded to make the impugned addition of Rs.14,18,817/-.

This leaves the assessee aggrieved.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement submissions. Suffice to say, the fact remains that the assessee on the one hand could prove meager salary income of Rs.2,80,000/- in preceding assessment year 2016-17 along with consultancy services amounting to Rs.2,59,500/-; respectively. There is no other source of income or receipt forthcoming as per facts emanating from the case file. Mr. Basavaraj at this stage could not dispute that accumulation of some past savings and house hold withdrawals etc., could not be per se ruled out as well. I therefore deem in these peculiar facts and circumstances a lumpsum addition of Rs.11 lakhs out of Rs.14,80,870/- only deserves to be upheld and the assessee is entitled to get relief of Rs.3,80,870/-. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

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

3 ITA.No.53/PUN./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.03.2024.

TUSHAR SATISH AGARWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(1), PUNE, PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments