Time-Barred Reassessment Quashed and Cash Deposits Restricted to 2% by ITAT Pune

Arpan Ashokkumar Jhunjhunwala Vs ITO (ITAT Pune Bench)

Crores Entered the Bank, but Only Commission Stayed With the Assessee: ITAT Taxes 2% of Deposits—Yet Quashes AY 2015-16 Reopening as Time-Barred

Summary: The assessee filed six appeals involving additions arising from cash deposited in accounts maintained with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and penalties u/s 271B.

There was a delay of 119 days in five appeals and 150 days in one appeal. After considering the condonation applications and affidavits, the Tribunal condoned the delays and admitted all appeals.

For AY 2015-16, information obtained during a search upon Renuka Mata Society indicated credits of ₹2,66,56,731 in the assessee’s account. The AO reopened the assessment and added the entire amount u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE.

An old-regime notice u/s 148 had been issued on 13.04.2021 and was subsequently treated as a show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) pursuant to Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal. A fresh notice u/s 148 was thereafter issued on 25.07.2022.

The assessee challenged this notice as time-barred by relying upon the Bombay High Court judgment in Polypeptide Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [188 taxmann.com 315 (Bom.)]. The High Court had noted the Revenue’s concession before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal that, for AY 2015-16, notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped since they did not fall within the period protected by TOLA.

The Revenue relied upon the contrary Madras High Court judgment in Appnell Holdings Ltd. v. DCIT. The Tribunal, however, held that it was bound by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court.

Accordingly, the notice dated 25.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 was held barred by limitation and the entire reassessment, including the addition of ₹2.66 crore, was quashed. The merits became academic.

For AY 2014-15, the AO had added the entire cash deposit of ₹2,22,32,522 u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee raised an additional ground that no notice u/s 143(2) had been issued after filing the return in response to notice u/s 148.

The Tribunal admitted the legal ground but rejected it on merits. The return filed by the assessee had been treated as invalid by CPC, and that determination was never challenged. Therefore, the Tribunal held that where no valid return existed, issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was not required.

On the quantum addition, however, the Tribunal found merit in the contention that the entire bank deposits could not represent the assessee’s real income. The deposits formed part of the profit & loss account and the assessee’s case was that he was merely facilitating transactions and earning commission.

Following ITO v. Vimal Jaydev Arya and related cases involving accounts with the same credit society, the Tribunal held that estimating income at 2% of the deposits would meet the ends of justice. The addition for AY 2014-15 was therefore restricted to ₹4,44,650, being 2% of ₹2.22 crore.

The same approach was followed for the remaining quantum appeals. For AY 2016-17, against cash deposits of ₹2,27,58,613, the addition was restricted to ₹4,55,172. For AY 2018-19, against deposits of ₹73,61,640, the addition was restricted to ₹1,47,233.

The Tribunal considered the continuous pattern of deposits and withdrawals. It observed that if the entire deposits represented the assessee’s income, one would ordinarily expect some corresponding asset, investment or lavish expenditure. The Revenue had not identified any such application of the alleged income.

At the same time, the accounts were not disclosed despite the assessee maintaining audited books. Therefore, complete deletion was not considered justified. A reasonable commission or profit element of 2% was adopted instead.

The two remaining appeals concerned penalties u/s 271B for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. The tax audit reports had been filed after a delay of approximately eight years. The assessee could not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the extraordinary delay.

The Tribunal therefore upheld penalties of ₹1,11,162 for AY 2014-15 and ₹1,33,284 for AY 2015-16.

Consequently, the AY 2015-16 quantum appeal was allowed, the quantum appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2018-19 were partly allowed, and both penalty appeals were dismissed.

Author’s Comment

The order draws a practical distinction between money circulating through an account and income belonging to the account holder. Gross deposits cannot automatically be equated with taxable income where the account reflects continuous rotation and the assessee functions as an intermediary. In such cases, only the commission element may represent real income.

However, the 2% estimate should not be treated as a universal formula. It arose from the peculiar Renuka Mata Society cases, surrounding facts and precedents concerning similar accounts.

The decision also carries two procedural lessons. First, the Bombay High Court’s limitation ruling prevailed over a contrary non-jurisdictional view. Second, the assessee’s section 143(2) objection failed because the return was treated as invalid and that treatment remained unchallenged.

Finally, success in reducing the quantum addition did not erase the independent tax-audit default. The crores were reduced to commission—but an eight-year delay in filing the audit report still carried its own penalty.

Cases Discussed

• Polypeptide Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT — [2026] 188 taxmann.com 315 (Bom.)
• Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal — (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC)
• Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal — [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64/286 Taxman 183/444 ITR 1 (SC)
• Appnell Holdings Ltd. v. DCIT — (2026) 188 taxmann.com 744 (Mad)
• National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT — [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT — (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)
• Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hotel Blue Moon — [2010] 188 Taxman 113 (SC)
• Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxman Das Khandelwal — [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC)
• ITO v. Vimal Jaydev Arya — ITA No.2156/PUN/2024 and CO No.15/PUN/2025, order dated 16.02.2026
• Jaydev Mahadev Arya — ITA Nos.1271 to 1273/PUN/2025
• Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel v. JAO — (Ahmedabad ITAT)
• Renukamat Multi State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd. v. ACIT — ITA Nos.4001 & 4002/Mum/2019
• Chintan Niketan Bhandari v. DCIT — IT(SS)A Nos.495 to 500 & 1604/Ahd/2019
• Geetaben Dineshchandra Gupta v. ITO — 129 taxmann.com 346 (Gujarat)
• PCIT v. Alag Securities (P.) Ltd. — 117 taxmann.com 292 (Bombay)
• Manoj Kumar Jain v. DCIT — ITA No.554/Del/2017
• Lucky Bajoria v. ITO — ITA No.345/Ahd/2021

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT, PUNE

ITA Nos.1775 to 1777/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 09.01.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment years 2018-19, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1778/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. ITA Nos.1779 & 1780/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 09.01.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. There is a delay of 119 days in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos.1775, 1776, 1777, 1779 & 1780/PUN/2025 before the Tribunal. Similarly, there is a delay of 150 days in filing of the appeal in ITA No.1778/PUN/2025 before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with the affidavits and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of all the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

ITA No.1777/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.4,63,200/-. Information was received and also available on Insight portal that during the search and seizure action in the case of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. on 26.05.2017 it was observed that the assessee had an account with the above mentioned society and the total unexplained cash credit / investment in the said account for the financial year 2014-15 i.e. assessment year 2015-16 is at Rs.2,66,56,731/-. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 13.04.2021 after recording reasons and after obtaining necessary statutory approval from the competent authority as per the prevailing provisions of section 151 of the Act. The said notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after following the provisions of TOLA, 2020 and as per CBDT Notification No.20 dated 31.03.2021 and the subsequent Notification No.38 dated 27.04.2021 according to which the time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 was extended to 30.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 respectively. Subsequently, on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Ashish Agarwal and others, notice u/s 148 was treated as notice to show cause u/s 148A(b). Accordingly, a fresh notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.07.2022. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 27.08.2022 declaring total income of Rs.11,14,670/- which was treated as invalid by the CPC. The assessee also e-filed his return of income on 17.02.2022 and 20.02.2023 which were also treated as invalid as the same were filed after the due date. The audit report in Form No.3CB/CD was uploaded on 04.03.2022. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed certain details. After considering various submissions filed by the assessee from time to time, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,77,71,401/- by making addition of Rs.2,66,56,731/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

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

The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other-

On facts and in law:

1. The assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], is bad in law due to the following reasons:

a) The reassessment proceedings were initiated solely based on the information received from ACIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai, without independent application of mind.

b) The re-assessment proceedings have been initiated only on the basis search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out in the case of M/s Sri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited.

c) Non-compliance with the procedural mandates of Section 144B of the Act, which governs the faceless assessment process.

d) The reopening of the assessment was based on presumption and surmises, reflecting borrowed satisfaction by the Ld. AO.

e) The AO proceeded on the fallacious assumption that bank deposits in cash constituted undisclosed income and overlooked facts that the cash deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee.

f) Mere cash deposits in the bank account cannot per se justify the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act.

2. The assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is bad in law and void ab initio as the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the following:

a) The Ld. AO has no jurisdiction to reopen the case of the appellant u/s 147 of the Act as once reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of information or incriminating material found in the search of third party then the provisions of section 153C of the Act are applicable which override the applicability of sections 147 and 148 of the Act.

b) Section 153C(1)(b) clearly provides for the reassessment on the basis of books of accounts or any information contained therein found during the course of search in the case of third party.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,66,56,731/- made by the Ld. AO under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit in the bank account, without considering the submissions made by the appellant.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the peak credit theory. The account statements clearly demonstrate both deposits and withdrawals, which ought to have been considered while determining the unexplained cash credits.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed a copy of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Polypeptide Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2026) 188 taxmann.com 315 (Bom) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Revenue had conceded that for Assessment Year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 were liable to be dropped as they would not fall within period prescribed under TOLA, notice issued under section 148 dated 29-7-2022 and order passed under section 148A(d) dated 28-7-2022 were liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in various decisions under similar circumstances have also quashed the re-assessment proceedings initiated for assessment year 2015-16 being barred by limitation. He accordingly submitted that this being a covered matter in favour of the assessee, notice issued u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 being barred by limitation has to be quashed.

7. The Ld. DR on the other hand referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Appnell Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2026) 188 taxmann.com 744 (Mad) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where CBDT Instruction No.01/2022 was issued to implement Supreme Court’s decision in Ashish Agarwal treating old regime section 148 notices as section 148A(b) notices under new regime from 01.04.2021, any challenge to such instruction could not be entertained and was to be dismissed. The Hon’ble High Court has further held where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) for income escaping assessment in relation to assessment year 2015-2016 were both issued on 28.07.2022, such issuance was within limitation period as per first and third provisos to section 149 read with TOLA, thus rendering writ petition against validity of notice not sustainable.

8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessment year involved in the instant case is assessment year 2015-16 and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 25.07.2022. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Polypeptide Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) has quashed the re-assessment proceedings where the notice u/s 148 for assessment year 2015-16 was issued on 28.07.2022. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under:

“1. In the above Writ Petition, Rule was issued on 22nd April 2025 and the same was made returnable peremptorily on 30th June 2025, at 2.30 pm, subject to overnight part heard matters. It appears that due to paucity of time, the matter had not reached and has finally come up for final hearing today.

2. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking an appropriate order or direction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof, to quash and set aside the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29th July 2022, as well as the Order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 28th July 2022.

3. The brief facts to be noted in the present Writ Petition are that initially, the Revenue had issued a Notice under Section 148, dated 5th April 2021, for Assessment Year 2015-16. After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64/286 Taxman 183/444 ITR 1 (SC), the Notices issued after 1 April 2021 and upto 30th June 2021 were to be treated as Show Cause Notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Notice dated 5th April 2021 was treated as a Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) and thereafter the Order dated 28th July 2022 was passed under Section 148A(d). Once the order under Section 148A(d) was passed, a fresh Notice was issued on 29th July 2022.

4. The issue of limitation of these Notices was the subject matter of another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/460 ITR 46 (SC). In this decision, and more particularly paragraph 19 thereof, the Revenue conceded that for Assessment Year 2015-16, Notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). The relevant portion of the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) reads thus:

“19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:

a. ……………..

b. ………………

c. ……………..

d. ……………..

f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA.”

5. In the light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the re-assessment proceedings in the present case, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, are clearly time barred.

6. In these circumstances, the above Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1) which reads thus:

“i. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set-aside the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 and Order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act dated 28.07.2022 and sustaining the reassessment proceedings;”

7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof.”

9. Although the Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Appnell Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) stating that the notice issued u/s 148 cannot be quashed being within limitation period as per first and third provisos to section 149 read with TOLA, however, the said decision is of a non-jurisdictional High Court. Since the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Polypeptide Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 is barred by limitation and therefore, such re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, allow the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds challenging the addition on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature.

10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

ITA No.1776/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

11. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee for the impugned assessment year has filed his return of income on 27.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,56,260/-. On the basis of information obtained that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.2,22,32,522/- in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., the case of the assessee was reopened and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 was issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 26.08.2022 declaring total income at Rs.8,88,860/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.04.2023 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,31,21,382/- wherein he made addition of Rs.2,22,32,522/- being the cash deposited in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. by invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

12. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

13. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

14. The assessee in the instant case apart from challenging the addition on merit has raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings in absence of issue of notice u/s 143(2) which reads as under:

“The assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is bad in law and void ab initio as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued after filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act.”

15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the above additional ground submitted that the additional ground raised is purely legal in nature which goes to the root of the matter and all the necessary facts are already available on record. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) he submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted.

16. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly objected to the admission of the additional ground raised by the assessee.

17. After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and all material facts necessary for adjudication of the issue are already available on record and no new facts are required to be investigated, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and in the case of Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued after the assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Relying on the following decisions he submitted that in absence of issue of notice u/s 143(2) after the assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148, the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is liable to be quashed:

1. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hotel Blue Moon (188 Taxman 113) (SC)

2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (108 taxmann.com 183) (SC)

3. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd (64 taxmann.com 220) (Delhi)

4. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Staunch Marketing (P.) Ltd. (81 taxmann.com 482) (Delhi)

5. PCIT vs Dart Infrabuild (P.) Ltd. (166 taxmann.com 4) (Delhi)

6. CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad (156 taxmann.com 19) (Patna)

7. Raja Bashumiya Maniyar v. The Income Tax Officer-1, Latur vide ITA No.455/PUN/2025

8. Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh v. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar vide ITA No.144/PUN/2025

9. Bharat Kantilal Chengede Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune vide ITA No.1902/PUN/2025

10. Hemlata Kamal Bhatia v. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune vide ITA No.2092/PUN/2025

11. ACIT v. Logic Control Pvt Ltd. vide ITA No.3974/DEL/2025

19. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relying on various decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal has adopted the profit rate of 2% on such deposits instead of the entire cash deposits made in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. For the above proposition, he relied on the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Vimal Jaydev Arya vide ITA No.2156/PUN/2024 and CO No.15/PUN/2025 order dated 16.02.2026 for assessment year 2015-16 and in the case of Sahebrao Godaji Bhand vs. ITO vide ITA Nos.644 & 645/PUN/2025 order dated 27.03.2026 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed.

20. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to para 3.2.1.3 of the assessment order submitted that once the return filed by the assessee has been treated as invalid by the CPC, there is no requirement of issue of any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has not challenged that the return so filed in response to the notice u/s 148 is not invalid. Under these circumstances, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessment has to be quashed in absence of notice u/s 143(2) is not correct.

21. So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that some percentage to be adopted is concerned, he submitted that since the assessee has failed to prove the source of entire cash deposit, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue be dismissed.

22. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessment order has to be quashed in absence of issue of notice u/s 143(2) is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer in para 3.2.1.3 of his order has categorically mentioned that the return filed on 26.08.2022 declaring total income of Rs.8,88,860/- was treated as invalid by the CPC. Even the subsequent returns filed on 31.01.2022 and 20.02.2023 were also treated as invalid as the same were filed after the due date. The assessee has never challenged the order of the CPC treating the returns as invalid. In our opinion, once the return filed by the assessee has been treated as invalid by the CPC, there is no requirement of issue of any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment in absence of notice issued u/s 143(2) is rejected.

23. So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that some percentage may be adopted instead of addition of the entire amount is concerned, we find some force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Admittedly, the deposits made in the bank account forms part of the Profit and Loss Account of the assessee for which the assessee has filed the audit report. We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Vimal Jaydev Arya vide ITA No.2156/PUN/2024 and CO No.15/PUN/2025 for assessment year 2015-16. We find the Tribunal vide order dated 16.02.2026 directed the Assessing Officer to adopt profit rate of 2% of such deposits. In that case the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.2,47,52,218/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being the amount of cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restricted the addition to Rs.2,50,000/-. The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 8 onwards read as under:

“8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that due to non-response to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he made addition of Rs.2,47,52,218/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being the amount of cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Credit Ltd. We find during the appellate proceedings the assessee made elaborate submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, based on which he called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer by forwarding all those details filed before him. Since the Assessing Officer either did not respond to the notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC or sought time after time to submit the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of the submissions made before him by the assessee and sustained only Rs.2,50,000/- being the commission amount on such deposits which remained to be offered to tax, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.

9. We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Jaydev Mahadev Arya for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 vide ITA Nos.1271 to 1273/PUN/2025 where the assessee had made similar arguments before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC who had dismissed the appeal. We have already decided the issue and vide order of even date we have directed the Assessing Officer to adopt profit rate of 2% on such deposits instead of the entire deposit by observing as under:

“12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.32,25,000/- being cash deposit made by the assessee in his account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Credit Ltd. The explanation of the assessee that he has maintained books of account and got the accounts audited under the provisions of the Act and that being a commission agent he used to receive advance from the customers for making purchase of agricultural produce from Latur Market Yard on their behalf, was rejected by the AO in absence of any documentary evidence to prove such purchases. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the entire deposits made in the bank account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Credit Ltd. cannot be added and only a percentage of such deposits as commission of the assessee should be adopted since the assessee has never earned such huge income and had got only some commission. It is also his argument that had the assessee earned such huge income, the same would have been represented by some amount or evidence of some expenditure. However, neither the assessee has made any investment or incurred such lavish expenditure nor the department has any evidence to this effect.

13. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel vs. JAO (supra) has considered an identical issue and restricted the addition to 0.25% of the deposits / credits made in the bank account held by the assessee with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Credit Ltd. by observing as under:

“9. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid additions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a person of little means and is only a name lender in the entire scheme of things. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee allowed the Renukamata Society to open the bank account in the name of the assessee, since the assessee was approached by the Manager of Bhavnagar Branch of Renumata Society Bank, who had told the assessee that if the assessee allowed the Renukamata Society to open / operate a bank account in the name of the assessee with Renukamata Society, this would entitle the assessee to avail financial assistance in the form of loans for future as and when the same is required and applied for. Further, the assessee was assured that the assessee would also be suitably compensated for such assistance provided to the Renukamata Bank. Accordingly, it was on the basis of these assurances that the assessee kept on signing blank forms, cheques, other documents, papers etc. which were produced before him from time to time. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that though the assessee allowed the Renukamata Bank to open and operate bank account in his name, the assessee has not deposited any money in the bank accounts maintained with Renukamata Society and neither has the assessee withdrawn any amount from these banks. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee also did not have any knowledge as to what type of transactions were being carried out through these bank accounts, from time to time. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that whenever there were any changes in the incumbent Manager of Renukamata in the Bhavnagar Branch, the assessee was generally called and asked to open a new bank account. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was given to understand that since the incumbent Branch Manager is required to fulfill it’s target of opening new bank accounts, this exercise of opening new bank account in the name of the assessee was required to be carried out. Accordingly, in order to maintain cordial relations with the new Branch Managers, the assessee used to sign whatever documents / papers etc. which were being produced before him in this regard. In all these cases the assessee used to sign blank cheque books and deliver the same to the incumbent Branch Manager as directed. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that though apparently benami and accommodation transactions were carried out by utilizing the above referred accounts open in the name of the assessee, the assessee neither deposited any money in the said accounts and neither did the assessee withdraw any money from the said account. Accordingly, it was grossly incorrect on part of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) to hold that the entire amount of bank deposits / credit made in the bank accounts for the impugned assessment years could be added in the hands of the assessee. This is especially in light of the fact that the assessee was not the real beneficiary of the amounts which were being deposited and later withdrawn in the bank accounts held by the assessee with Renukamata Society Bank Ltd. In support of the above arguments, the Counsel for the assessee filed before us order passed by ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Renukamat Multi State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT (in ITA Nos. 4001 & 4002/Mum/2019), from which it is evident that Renukamata Society Bank has been regularly and for past several years engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries, by opening bank accounts in the names of people with meagre income, by luring them into opening bank accounts with Renukamata Society. Accordingly, it was submitted that the assessee was only a name lender and he was not the real beneficiary of such income. Further the Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of Chintan Niketan Bhandari vs. DCIT (in IT(SS)A Nos. 495 to 500 & 1604/Ahd/2019) in support of the contention that only a reasonable percentage, if any, should be added in the hands of the assessee and the entire amount cannot be added as the income of the assessee.

10. Further, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page 11 of the Paper Book and submitted that even the list of beneficiaries to these accommodation entries is within the knowledge of the Department and accordingly, it would be wholly erroneous to tax the entire income in the hands of the assessee, when it is known to the Department, that the assessee is only a name lender and the real beneficiaries of such transactions are other people, who are behind the entire racket, by using the name of various innocent people, including the assessee.

11. During the course of arguments, we had requested the Department to furnish a copy of the Investigation Report, on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee so as to facilitate the Bench in adjudicating the issue, which is before the Bench for it’s consideration. Accordingly, the Department vide letter dated 15.03.2024, submitted before us the information regarding the report of the Investigation Wing and other related documents.

12. On going through the contents of the report of the Investigation Wing made available to us, we observe that on the basis of search carried out at the premises of Renukamata Society, the Department had observed that the Renukamata Society had opened and was operating several bank accounts, which had been opened in the name of various depositors, many of which were merely name lenders. As per the Investigation Report, most of the depositors were non-filers of Income Tax Returns. Further, as per Investigation Report, the Department had observed that most of such account holders are person of low means and their financial profiling does not correspond to the high volume of cash deposits in their accounts with the Renukamata Society. Further, as per the report, the Department observed that during Financial Year 2012-13, Renukamata Society had made total deposits in the bank account amounting to Rs.45,055 crores. The Department observed that on analysis of cash deposits and withdrawals, it is seen that the society is operating on the basis of typical Angadia Model, without maintaining proper documentation regarding identity of persons depositing and withdrawing the cash. The Department observed that the cash deposits made in these accounts are subsequently transferred to bank accounts of shell entities. The funds are subsequently being remitted abroad by these shell entities for prima facie bogus imports etc. Accordingly, even as per the report of the Investigation Wing, Renukamata Society had roped in various individuals of meagre means to open bank accounts in their names and thereafter, such bank accounts were operated by other persons / real beneficiaries for carrying out various activities viz. remittance of money abroad with falsified documents, payment of custom duty, purchase of bullion etc. Accordingly, even as per the report of the Investigation Wing with the Department, it is evident that the assessee is not the real beneficiary of such banking transactions done in it’s bank account. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of report dated 12.03.2021 for ready reference:-

“A search &Seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961was carried out in case of the assessee M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (in short Society/SRMSCS) (PAN: AADAS7782D) on 26.05.2017 and subsequently the case was centralized with this charge. During the search, it was found that the huge money was deposited in the bank accounts maintained in the society and during the course of assessment proceedings the society could not explain the source for the same.

The main allegations against the society leading to search action are as under:

i. The society has allowed huge cash deposits in the account of its account holders whose creditworthiness is doubtful.

ii. Pre-search, post search and assessment stage inquiry in respect of account holders, in whose accounts substantial cash deposits were made, most were either untraceable or person of very no/low means.

Modus Operandi found during the Search & Assessment proceedings:

As per the enquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing and by this office, the modus operandi is that various accounts were opened in the co-operative society. Huge cash deposits were made at home branch of the customer of SRMUCS as well as other branches (remote) branches of SRMUCS. Credits into the account-holders’ of SRMUCS were made by following modes:

(a) Cash deposit made at home branch of customers’ accounts maintained with SRMUCS.

(b) Cash deposit made at other than home branch of customers’ accounts maintained with SRMUCS (Remote)

(c) By transfer from other customers of SRMUCS.

(d) By transfer from customer of SRMUCS/ other parties having accounts at Public/ Private sector banks.

The amounts so credited were withdrawn by the depositors through following modes:

(a) Cash withdrawn from home branch of customers’ accounts maintained with SRMUCS.

(b) Cash withdrawn from other than home branches of customers’ accounts maintained with SRMUCS (Remote),

(c ) Cash withdrawal by other customers of SRMUCS.

(d.) On transfer to customers of SRMUCS/ other parties having accounts at Public/ Private sector banks online/ RTGS/ NEFT, which were later transferred to other accounts or withdrawn as cash.

(iii) Money so transferred were used for following purposes:

(a) Remitting money abroad with improper/falsified documentation in the garb of imports.

(b) Payment of customs duty.

(c) Purchase of the bullion or other purchases.

(d) Transfer to other parties online/ RTGS/ NEFT

(e) Withdrawn by the beneficiaries.

3. On physical verification of some of these members/account holders, it was seen that many of the entities / account holders were not found on their address. Notices u/s 133(6) and summons u/s 131 were issued to top 200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records where in some cases ITR were filed. In many cases, the accounts were operated under the knowledge of the account holders on payment of commission. By and large these credits in the accounts of the account-holders were unexplained within the meaning of the section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders.

4. Details of your assessee:

Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account numbers of account held by them in the Society. Financial Year-wise credits have been provided in lakh rupees. It may kindly be noted that majority of the deposits are in cash only.

5. As per the ITBA based PAN query, the PAN jurisdiction of the assessee lies with your charge and accordingly the information is shared with a request to make further investigation to verify the credit-worthiness in the above-mentioned account along with source of credit entries and to take necessary remedial action at your end. Provisions under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 may also be kept in mind while taking suitable action.

6. While taking remedial actions, kindly take note of following points:

(i) Most of the depositors are Non-filers.

(ii) Even in cases where ITRs are filed, these amounts of deposits are not reflected in the ITRs.”

13. Further, it would also be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of another report dated 13.10.2017, which would throw useful light in respect of the issue under consideration before us:-

“6. The finds of the search action so far are being listed down as under:

a) Shri Renukamata Multi State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Limited has huge cash deposits made in the accounts of its customers in last five years. Primafacie, most of the cash deposit is unaccounted and is in the names of the individuals of small or shell companies/entities. The cash so accepted is then deposited by the employees of the Society in the various bank accounts of society (list annexed), and then transferred out as RTGS/NEI’T in accordance with rho instructions of the customers, who bring the cash to the society. In the statement of branch manager of Ahmadabad of the society, he has mentioned few accounts which are being operated on behalf of the employer of account holder.

b) The society has also issued Demand Drafts to various walk-in customers in their branches by splitting the cash received to below Rs. 50,000/- in each instance and without taking any KYC details on record. The investigation carried so far shows that Demand Drafts of substantial amount have been issued by the society, after splitting the amount in such a way that each Demand Draft value is less than Rs.50,000/-.

c) From the analysis of cash deposits and withdrawals, it is seen that substantial amounts of withdrawals made are against deposits made in cash at different branches of the society without proper documentation of identity of persons depositing and withdrawing the cash. Therefore, society is working on the basis of typical Angadia model without maintaining proper documentation.

d) During the post search investigation, it is seen mat cash deposits made in the accounts holders of Mumbai branch is subsequently transferred to the bank accounts of shell entities. The funds are subsequently being remitted abroad by these shell entities, for prima facie bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable. The investigations with respect to shell entities revealed that proprietors of these entities have also lent their identities and ore not into any genuine business activity. These bank accounts were operated by persons whose identity is yet not established. The, details of these shell entities along with amount transferred from the society are being tabulated as under:

Name of entity	Amount transferred from accounts with Mumbai branch of society
Azure Enterprise Prop. Neeraj Rajkumar Singh	139.63 Cr.
Fine Touch Impex Prop. Dhannanjay Nikam	73.6 Cr.
Iconic Enterprises Prop. Siddharth Keshav Gaikwad	54.2 Cr.
Seabird Enterprises Prop. Vinayak Ranjan Thakre	53.52 Cr.
Zillion Enterprises Prop. Shaikh Mukaram Iqbal	16.27 Cr.
Om Enterprises Prop. Ravi Ashok Prajapati	9.7 Cr.
Grafik Traders Prop. Saniket C. Nanavare	4.16 Cr.
Sai Impex Prop. Harkut Harinarayan Dhanjay	9.38 Cr.
Jolly Collections Prop. N. N. Raut	5.18 Cr.
Nishica Impex Pvt. Ltd.	15.2 Cr.
Globus Corporation Prop. Harkut Harinarayan Dhanjay	3.12 Cr.
Irfan Trading Company Prop. Irfan Shaikh	2.54 Cr.
R C International Prop. Chetan Vinod Thakkar	6.33 Cr.
Riya Enterprises Prop. Nitin Pradeep Gaurav	1.85 Cr.

e) At Ahmadabad branches of society, specific instances of non-proper maintenance of account opening forms and KYC documents are found. It is also seen that society has accepted cash of amount Rs. 85 lacs in demonetized currency after 08.11.2016 at the Ahmadabad brunch at the instruction of Yogesh Bhalerao. Also, Dashraihbhai C Khant, Assistant Branch Manager at Bapunagar branch, Ahmadabad has given the details of benami accounts being operated from the branch (please refer the reply to Q. 31 in statement of Dashrathhhai C. Khant).

f) Dashrathbhai C. Khant, Assistant Branch Manager at Bapunagar branch, Ahmedabad has given the details of benami accounts being operated from the branch. He has also stated that he is aware of these benami accounts because on few occasions when cash is not available in the branch account holders of such accounts tell him to talk to their employers with respect to cash transactions. The details of such benami accounts are provided by him in reply to Question No 31 in his statement.”

14. It would be further useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the ITAT decision of Ranukamat Multi State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd. in ITA Nos. 4001 & 4002/ Mum/2019, wherein the ITAT made the following impugned observations regarding the modus operandi of Renukamata Society:-

“47. Be that as it may, the contents of the report shows that the Ld. DDIT(I&CI) had observed that these account holders were depositing large sums of cash on different dates in the accounts held by them with the assessee society, which was in turn being routed to different firms by way of RTGS who were the ultimate beneficiaries of these deposits and had failed to disclose the same in their respective tax returns. The Ld. DDIT(I&CI) observed that by taking advantage of the absence of reporting liabilities, these societies were being used as a conduit for money laundering. It is therefore noted that, it was not the case of the DDIT(I&CI) that these cash deposits belonged to the assessee or represented its unaccounted monies. Rather, according to the DDIT(I&CI), certain individuals were using the accounts held by members in the assessee society to route their unaccounted monies and the beneficiaries in relation thereto is also noted to have been identified by the DDIT(I&CI). In fact, one of the ten persons viz., Mr. R.A. Shah from whom enquiries were made had admitted that he had not disclosed his account in his tax return and accordingly revised his return of income and paid taxes thereon. On these facts, we are unable to countenance the action of Ld. CIT(A) seeking to justify the additions by way of unexplained monies being made u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee society, based on this spot verification report which does not incriminate the assessee qua the cash deposits made by these depositors qua these relevant AYs in these appeals.

48. It is further noted that, the Ld. DDIT(I&CI) was of the view that the assessee was flouting the norms of prudent financial irregularities by accepting such high value cash deposits without first verifying the source of funds and creditworthiness of the account holders. To this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities to its members. In terms of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 read with Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the assessee society was only required to obtain the relevant KYC details of the members at the time of opening of their accounts and like other banks / banking institutions, they were not statutorily empowered to enquire into their source of funds or their creditworthiness whenever they deposited funds in their respective accounts held with the assessee society. He pointed out that, unlike banks which could flag suspicious transactions in their suspicious transaction report or cash transaction report which they were required to statutorily file with the concerned departments, the assessee society was unable to do so in the absence of any corresponding provision in law. It is noted by us that this absence of statutory reporting obligation/liabilities were also taken note of by the DDIT(I&CI) in their report. The Ld. AR thus submitted that, the absence of statutory reporting liabilities cannot be held against the assessee so as to suggest that the assessee was facilitating such high value cash deposits. To substantiate the bonafides of the assessee society, the Ld. AR showed that the assessee had suo moto written several petitions to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU-IND) much prior to the date of search on 09.02.2016 viz., between July 2014 to June 2016 wherein they had time and again requested them to register them with FIU-IND so that they could share the details & information of their members with the concerned Department. He showed us that, it was only vide Circular dated 08-01-2018 that the multi-state cooperative societies were brought within the purview of PMLA Act, 2002 and all multi-state cooperative societies were required to register themselves with the Department. Before us, the Revenue was unable to bring any material on record to controvert the aforesaid submissions of the assessee society.

49. On the overall conspectus of the facts, as discussed in the foregoing, we thus hold that the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) viz., existence of incriminating material & statements against the assessee society, to justify the validity of the additions made in the unabated assessments framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act for AY 2010-11 was untenable both on facts and in law.”

15. Accordingly, on going through the above report by the Investigation Wing and the order passed by ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Renukamat Multi State Cooperative Union Credit Society Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee was not the real beneficiary of substantial cash deposits / credits which were made in his bank account held with Renukamata Society. From the above facts placed on record, it is observed that these bank accounts were being operated in the name of the assessee by the real beneficiaries / depositors, in collusion with Renukamata Society and the assessee, cannot be saddled with the ownership of the entire income deposited / credited in his bank account with Renukamata Society.

16. This brings to the next question as to what could be the reasonable amount which could be held to be taxable in the hands of the assessee, for allowing the Renukamata Society / real beneficiaries to operate the bank accounts, held in the name of the assessee. In the case of Geetaben Dineshchandra Gupta v. ITO 129 taxmann.com 346 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court made the following observations:

“Thus, considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the instant case visa-vis considering the settled legal position, it appears that there is direct nexus/live link between the material coming to the notice of the Assessing Officer and that for formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent was not disclosed in return and thereby, the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. As emerges from the record, the petitioner has filed Rol for the assessment year 2012-13 disclosing income of Rs. 1.42,694 despite showing a huge turnover of Rs. 24,10,82,501 in the audited books of account. Further, a detailed investigation is carried out by the Investigation Wing and the outcome of the same prima facie substantiates the case of the department. Thus, formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, based upon material derived during inquiry/investigation, appears to be justified. Thus, the petition failed and dismissed.”

17. In the case of PCIT v. Alag Securities (P.) Ltd 117 taxmann.com 292 (Bombay), the High Court held that 0.15% rate of commission offered to tax by the assessee was a reasonable rate in facts of the assessee’s case.

18. In the case of Manoj Kumar Jain v. DCIT ITA No. 554/Del/2017, the Delhi ITAT held that commission of 0.5% to be reasonable considering the facts of the case. While passing the order, the ITAT observed as under:

“3. The moot issue involves assessment of cash deposits found in the bank account of the assessee of Rs.7.37 Crs. and commission earned at the rate of 3% on the said amount of Rs.7.37 Crs. to the tune of Rs.22.12 lacs. The assessee has been alleged to be an entry operator providing bills of purchase & sales without any actual business transactions.

4. The amount of Rs.7.37 Crs. has been added on protective basis and information regarding the beneficiaries was passed on to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the beneficiaries for substantive assessment. The commission of Rs.22.12 lacs has been added on substantive basis.

5. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.3561/Del/2015 vide order dated 22.05.2020 has adjudicated on both the issues. The addition being protective in nature has been deleted by the order of the Tribunal. The commission charged @3% has been brought down to 0.5%.

6. Since, the issues stands squarely covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal in the absence of any material change and the facts of the case except the amount involved, we hereby hold as under:

a) The addition made on protective basis is directed to be deleted

b) The commission to be charged @0.5%”

19. In the case of Chintan Niketan Bhandari v. DCIT IT(SS)A Nos. 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500 & 1604/Ahd/2019, the jurisdictional Ahmedabad ITAT vide order dated 29-11-2022 held that since the assessee failed to provide complete details regarding the commission income, the commission income may be computed @ 0.25% in the hands of the assessee. While passing the order, the ITAT made the following observations:

“8.2 Now coming to the instant facts, we observe that the assessee has been running several concerns in the name of himself and in the name of other persons who are engaged in the activities of taking cheques and cash and deposited the same in their bank accounts. The assessee’s contention is that he is merely acted as a commission agent and hence only the commission amount should be subject to tax in its hands. However, the Department has observed that the assessee could not produce that complete details of beneficiaries with their names, complete addresses, PAN and other details of transactions. In the instant case, there are approximately more than 7000 beneficiaries and only in the case of 116 beneficiaries, the PAN has been identified. For 2752 entries, PAN has not been identified. For balance entries, only part details are available. If the assessee is submitting that he is liable to be taxed only on the commission income so earned, then the onus is on the assessee to provide the basis as to how such commission income has been arrived at and list of beneficiaries and other details so that whether the correct amount of “commission income” has been offered to tax may be verified by the Department. The Department cannot be expected to find out the details of all beneficiaries itself and cannot accept whatever income or expenses are offered/claimed by the assessee, without the assessee providing any methodology of arriving at the same along-with supporting evidence viz. details of beneficiaries, details of middlemen, basis of arriving at commission etc. In the instant facts, the assessee has submitted that he was operating through middlemen and does not know the name of beneficiaries in most of cases. However, most times, even the middlemen could not be contacted by the Department, since notices could not be served upon them as they were not available. Accordingly, in absence of details forthcoming from the assessee, a reasonable percentage may be arrived at, in the instant facts to arrive at the “commission” income earned by the assessee. In our view, looking into the totality of facts, it would be reasonable to take 0.25% of total deposits in the bank accounts owned/ operated by the assessee (₹ 295,56,30,168 for assessment year 2017-18), as commission income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration.”

20. In the case of Lucky Bajoria v. ITO in ITA No. 345/Ahd/2021, the ITAT Ahmedabad while holding that rate of 0.25% would be a reasonable rate, made the following observations:

“7.4 Now coming to the instant facts, we observe that the assessee has submitted that it has earned commission income, however, no details regarding the commission income earned by the assessee was furnished to the Department during the course of assessment or appellate proceedings. As held in the judicial precedents highlighted above, if the assessee is submitting that he is liable to be taxed only on the commission income so earned, then the onus is on the assessee to provide the basis as to how such commission income has been arrived at and also to provide list of beneficiaries and other details so that whether the correct amount of “commission income” has been offered to tax may be verified by the Department. However, the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts, has not maintained cash book and bank book, he has not submitted any details of parties from whom the commission income has been earned, the assessee has not given any supporting documents to corroborate the correct rate at which commission income may be computed and the assessee has also not provided details/ list of parties who have made deposits to the tune of ₹ 158 crores in the bank accounts held by the assessee. The assessee has not come up with any details to substantiate its stand that the commission income may be restricted to 0.1% to 0.15%. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, in the interests of justice, it would be reasonable to restrict the net commission income @0.25% of the total deposits in the bank account held by the assessee. In the result, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.”

21. Accordingly, in the interest of the justice, looking into the instant facts it is held that 0.25% of the deposits / credits made in the bank accounts held by the assessee with Renukamata Society would be the income of the assessee, so as to serve the ends of justice.”

14. We find in the instant case also a perusal of the bank account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. shows that there are continuous deposits as well as withdrawals in the said account. There is some force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Revenue has not found any such investment or lavish expenditure made by the assessee. We find had the assessee earned an amount of Rs.32,25,000/- as alleged by the Revenue then the same would have been available in some form of assets or investment or lavish expenditure. However, there is no such finding by the Revenue. At the same time, the assessee is maintaining books of account and his accounts are audited and still the deposits and withdrawals in the said bank account were not disclosed. Under these circumstances, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that adoption of 2% income on the deposit of Rs.32,25,000/- instead of the entire deposit will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt 2% income on deposit of Rs.32,25,000/-. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.

ITA Nos.1272 & 1273/PUN/2025 (A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

15. After hearing both sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee in the above two appeals are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1271/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the income @ 2% of deposits made by the assessee in the account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd instead of the entire deposits. Following same reasonings, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate @ 2% on deposits made by the assesse in the account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.”

10. Since the facts of the instant case are identical, therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 2% on such deposits instead of Rs.2,50,000/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed.”

24. Following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Vimal Jaydev Arya (supra), we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs.4,44,650/- by adopting the profit rate of 2% on such cash deposit of Rs.2,22,32,522/- made in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.

ITA No.1778/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17)

25. After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1776/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and have directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate @ 2% of the cash deposit in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Since the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year has made addition of Rs.2,27,58,613/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 being the cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., therefore, following our reasonings given in the preceding paragraphs, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs.4,55,172/- by adopting the profit rate of 2% on such cash deposit. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.

ITA No.1775/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)

26. After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1776/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and have directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate @ 2% of the cash deposit in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Since the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year has made addition of Rs.73,61,640/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 being the cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., therefore, following our reasonings given in the preceding paragraphs, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs.1,47,233/- by adopting the profit rate of 2% on such cash deposit. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.

ITA Nos.1779 & 1780/PUN/2025 (A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

27. In these two appeals the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,162/- for assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.1,33,284/- for assessment year 2015-16 respectively.

28. First we take up ITA No.1779/PUN/2025 for assessment year 2014-15 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 27.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,56,260/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and accordingly a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the return of income on 26.08.2022 declaring total income of Rs.8,88,860/-. The assessee uploaded the audit report on 02.03.2022 i.e. after alapse of 8 years. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,11,162/- u/s 271B being the penalty @ 0.50% of the turnover of Rs.2,22,32,522/-.

29. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

7. Ground Nos. 3 to 5:- These grounds of appeal revolve around the imposition of penalty u/s 271B of the Act stating that entire cash deposits were declared as turnover by the appellant in his return of income and audit report was uploaded after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.

7.1 The requirement of audit of accounts is on the basis of total sales, turnover or gross receipts in a year in the case of a business when the same exceeds the prescribed limit under legislature. In the assessment proceedings, the appellant claimed that the source of cash deposits of Rs.2,22,32,522/- was receipts from cash sales but the AO added the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act as the appellant was failed to prove the entire cash deposits and thus, the appellant fell within this ambit requiring an audit of his accounts as per Section 44AB of the Act as the turnover of the appellant exceeded the prescribed limit.

However, the appellant did not get audited his accounts and failed to furnish the audit report within the stipulated date. Although, the appellant got audited his accounts only after the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and the audit report was uploaded on 04.03.2022 i.e. after lapse of 8 years of due date. In penalty proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings, the appellant has brought nothing on record regarding cause of delay in filing of audit report. Section 44AB of the Act reads as under;

“Every person,—

(a) carrying on business shall, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business exceed or exceeds one crore rupees in any previous year:

Provided that in the case of a person whose—

(a) aggregate of all amounts received including amount received for sales, turnover or gross receipts during the previous year, in cash, does not exceed five per cent of the said amount; and

(b) aggregate of all payments made including amount incurred for expenditure, in cash, during the previous year does not exceed five per cent of the said payment, this clause shall have effect as if for the words “one crore rupees”, the words “[ten] crore rupees” had been substituted:

(Provided further that for the purposes of this clause, the payment or receipt, as the case may be, by a cheque drawn on a bank or by a bank draft, which is not account payee, shall be deemed to be the payment or receipt, as the case may be, in cash; or)

(b) carrying on profession shall, if his gross receipts in profession exceed fifty lakh rupees in any previous year, or

(c) carrying on the business shall, if the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits or gains of such person under section 44AE or section 44BB or section 44BBB, as the case may be, and he has claimed his income to be lower than the profits or gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business, as the case may be, in any previous year; or

(d) carrying on the profession shall, if the profits and gains from the profession are deemed to be the profits and gains of such person under section 44ADA and he has claimed such income to be lower than the profits and gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his profession and his income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in any previous year; or

(e) carrying on the business shall, if the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 44D are applicable in his case and his income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in any previous year, get his accounts of such previous year audited by an accountant before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that this section shall not apply to the person, who declares profits and gains for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 44AD and his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business does not exceed two crore rupees in such previous year.”

7.2 The intention of the legislature is clear that the appellant has to get his accounts audited and to furnish the audit report before the specified date in the prescribed form. However, in the present case the appellant failed to discharge statutory obligation as required u/s 44AB of the Act. There are various judicial pronouncements wherein it was held that if there is any failure on part of ‘assessee’ to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year relevant to assessment year or if he fails to furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB then as per provisions of section 44AB read with section 271B of the Act, he is liable to be imposed with penalty u/s 271B of the Act.

7.3 As the appellant filed audit report after lapse of eight years of due date as required u/s 44AB of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that a lenient view could have been taken if the appellant had given any pressing justification for having failed to get the books audited in time. The appellant has not even bothered to give any reason whatsoever for the said failure and is claiming the non leviability of penalty merely because of the fact that he got the books audited and the 3CD report was filed with a delay of as many as 8 years. The appellant seems to be under an impression that mere filing of 3CD report is enough and just because he has filed the 3CD report, the AO as well as the appellate authority are not entitled to even consider the levying of penalty u/s 271B of the Act. The said view of the appellant is preposterous to say the least and deserves to be dismissed outrightly. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that this is fit case for penalty u/s 271B. I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the AO. Thus, the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act is upheld. Hence, the ground of appeal taken by the appellant is treated as dismissed.

30. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

31. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessee filed the audit report after a lapse of 8 years of due date as required u/s 44AB of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not give any reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited within the due date. Since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer has given justifiable reasons and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the same and dismiss the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act.

ITA No.1780/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

32. After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271B in the instant appeal are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1779/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Following similar reasonings, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.

33. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1777/PUN/2025 is allowed, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.1775, 1776 & 1778/PUN/2025 are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.1779 & 1780/PUN/2025 are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10 th September, 2026.