ROHIT RASTOGI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

2.4. During the course of search and survey proceedings various documents including huge digital data were impounded from the office premises of M/s Pooja Enterprises which included details of 52 entities including that of M/s Pooja Impex, proprietary concern of Sh. Rohit Rastogi, the assessee. Statements u/s 132(4) / 131(JA) of IT Act, 1961 were recorded on oath of many persons including Sh. Rohit Rastogi (the assessee).

3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.9,31,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, Rs.52,124/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs.1 lakh u/s 80C of the Act as the appellant miserably failed to prove his claim

4. The assessee challenged the addition u/s 69A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding as follows:-

“5.1.1 During the assessment proceedings, the appellant has claimed to be owner of a proprietary concern M/s Pooja Impex and no other business in his name. It is further noted that as per Return of Income filed by the assessee, there was no other known source of income from where the assessee could had generated cash which had been deposited aggregating to Rs 9,31,000/- in his saving bank account as referred above. Further, no details of source of cash was furnished by the assessee which was deposited into bank aggregating to Rs 9,31,000/-. Further, the copy of cash book furnished by the assessee also did not support the source of cash deposited into the said bank account. There were a few transactions of withdrawals from bank but it could not be ascertained that any cash which was withdrawn from bank was the cash which was deposited in bank subsequently. Neither any details in this regard was furnished by the assessee nor any plausible explanation was provided. Now during the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the said payment was deposited out of cash withdrawal on various dates from the same bank accounts. However, the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of his claim. In absence of any documentary explanation form the appellant, I am of the view that the cash deposited by the appellant remained unexplained and the same is considered as his unexplained money. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer on this account is upheld and the grounds taken by the appellant is hereby dismissed.”

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to the provisions of law, the learned Commissioner of Appeal has erred in law as well as on facts confirming an addition of Rs. 9,31,000/- u/s 69A Unexplained cash credit deposited in bank overlooked the vital fact that the said payment was deposited out of cash withdrawal on various dates from the same banks accounts. 1.2. That the assessment order passed and additions made are arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the letter and spirit of provisions of law. The order passed by the learned Assessing Commissioner of Appeal is bad in law.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Appeal has not adjudicated Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being premature in nature and same are also not applicable as when all the material facts were disclosed in the return of income, supported by details/information, audited accounts, other relevant documents filed during assessment proceedings.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to the provisions of law, the learned Commissioner of Appeal has erred in confirming to charge interest of Rs. 2,39,171/-i.e. (Rs. 35,902/- u/s 234A & Rs. 2,03,269/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961).

4. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Appeal is wrong on facts and bad in provisions of law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26TH May, 2025.