BHUSHAN RAVINDRA DANDAVATE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order
dated 17-01-2023 passed by the CIT(A), Pune-11 in relation to
the Assessment Year 2020-21.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the
confirmation of addition of Rs.60.00 lakh, being, the
unexplained cash found in the premises of M/s.PNG Jewellers
claimed to have been belonging to the assessee.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that search and
seizure was taken u/s.132 of the Act on 04-04-2019 in the case
of M/s.PNG Jewellers, Pune, in which cash of Rs.75.00 lakh
2 ITA No.314/PUN/2023 Bhushan Ravindra Dandavate
was found. M/s.PNG Jewellers submitted that such cash
belonged to the assessee, which was owned by the assesee also.
The Assessing Officer (AO) required the assessee to furnish the
source of such cash. The assessee tendered certain details and
explanations. Out of that, the AO accepted the explanation of
the assessee to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakh, being, receipt on
account of Cancellation Deed made in case of agreement to
purchase land. The remaining amount of Rs.60.00 lakh was
added. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. Aggrieved
thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard both the sides and gone through the
relevant material on record. Once M/s PNG Jewellers, Pune
explained and the assessee admitted that the cash found from
their premises during the course of search belonged to the
assessee, the addition could have been made at one place only,
which, in the instant case, has been made is in the hands of the
assessee, sparing the jewelers. The assessee admitted to have
kept this much cash with M/s PNG Jewellers, Pune for safe
custody. On a pertinent query, it was stated by the ld. AR that
the assessee was associated with the jewelers as a Consultant
and had never kept cash or other valuables in past or in future
with it for safe custody. It has further been informed that the
3 ITA No.314/PUN/2023 Bhushan Ravindra Dandavate
assessee had regular bank accounts of his own and HUF. There
was no answer to why the cash was not kept in the bank
account rather than keeping it with jewelers. The assessee’s
explanation, giving item-wise source of cash, which was
allegedly kept by him with M/s.PNG Jewellers, is as under :
Sr. In case of Amount in Rs. Details No. 1 Individual 15,00,000.00 Receipt on account of Cancellation Deed made in case of Agreement to Purchase Land Opening Cash in Hand as on 01st 2 Individual 40,410.00 April 2018. Cash in Hand as on 31st March 2019 3 Individual 26,01,422.00 on account of Trading activity carried out in Sale and Purchase of Turmeric through – ‘Bhushan Traders’. Cash in Hand as on 31st March 4 HUF 98,312.00 2019.
5 HUF 6,07,200.00 Agriculture Income earned during F.Y. 2018-19 – Sale of Grapes – (6600 kg * 92/- per kg) 6 HUF 26,18,000.00 Receipt of consideration on account of Sale of Livestock - Cows 7 HUF 48,295.00 Net income on account of Sale of Milk Total 75,13,639.00
The AO accepted the first transaction of Rs.15.00 lakh. The
assessee in the instant appeal did not press item Nos. 2, 3, 4 and
To put it simply, the assessee pressed only item Nos. 5 and
6, viz., cash of Rs.6,07,200/- claimed to have been received
from HUF, which had agricultural income from sale of grapes;
and cash of Rs.26,18,000/- again claimed to have been received
4 ITA No.314/PUN/2023 Bhushan Ravindra Dandavate
from HUF, which, in turn, had realized it from sale of livestock
of cows.
As regards the consideration on account of sale of
livestock – cows amounting to Rs.26,18,000/-, the assessee
contended before the AO that the HUF had 27 livestock and 17
of them were in the last stage of their pregnancy and the
assessee realized Rs.21.16 lakh from the sale of mother-cows
and Rs.5.02 lakh from the sale of their offsprings. However, no
evidence was tendered in support of the sale transactions. The
assessee has set up a case that the HUF purchased cows on
24-01-2017 and 21-09-2017 for a sum of Rs.23.00 lakh from
Kulkarni Dairy Farms and the payments were made by cheque.
It was further submitted that the cows were sold in cash prior to
his going to USA from 13-03-2019 to 27-03-2019 and the said
cash was kept for safe custody with M/s.PNG Jewellers. On a
pertinent query, the ld. AR failed to point out any evidence of
either purchase of cows or sale of cows even though it was
submitted that Rs.23.00 lakh was spent on purchase of cows
from Kulkarni Dairy Farms, except for showing that the
payments were made through cheques to Kulkarni Dairy Farms.
No evidence was placed on record to demonstrate that such
payments were only in support of the purchase of cows.
5 ITA No.314/PUN/2023 Bhushan Ravindra Dandavate
Similar is the position regarding sale of cows. The assessee
claimed to have sold the cows in cash in the HUF. No evidence
whatsoever regarding the details of the buyers who purchased
the cows or any other detail of sale were furnished either at the
time of search or before the AO or before the CIT(A). Similar
position continues before the Tribunal as well. Further, the
claim has been made that the cows were sold by HUF and how
the money got transferred to the assessee is again wanting.
Thus, it is evident that neither the purchase nor the sale of cows
is substantiated. In view of these facts, we find it difficult to
accept the assessee’s contention. The impugned order is
countenanced on this score.
The next item is a sum of Rs.6,07,200/- claimed to have
been realized by the assessee from sale of grapes by HUF. In
this regard, again we find that no evidence was placed before
the authorities below or the Tribunal to show the buyers of
grapes or their details/particulars. No detail of any expenditure
incurred in growing of grapes has been made available. The
mere 7/12 extract of some land does not prove the growing of
grapes and the sale thereof. In the absence of any evidence in
support of the sale of grapes, we are constrained to uphold the
impugned order in not accepting the assessee’s contention.
6 ITA No.314/PUN/2023 Bhushan Ravindra Dandavate
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th December,
2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 14th December, 2023 सतीश आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The respondent 2. 3. The Pr.CIT(Central), Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
7 ITA No.314/PUN/2023 Bhushan Ravindra Dandavate
Date 1. Draft dictated on 14-12-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 14-12-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
