MR. BHAUSAHEB B PANSARE,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD-3(1), KALYAN

The brief facts assessee filed consideration ₹10,55,110/-. T Computer Aide examining “lar purchases”. St tax Act, 1961 ( he addition of Rs. 52,87,240/- made of the Act. nt submits that the CIT(A) confirmed e AO without appreciating the fact that explained with supporting document undertaking/confirmations to prove th the said credit card transactions a were not carried out by him but were friend to whom he had lent his cr the onus cast upon the Appellant. nt therefore prays that the AO be dire stigation into the matter and satisfy ade by the Appellant denying the fact s were carried out by him and were in arty who has admitted to the use of th rying out his business requirements. s, as culled out from the recor his return of income for t on 12 July 2023, declaring a The return was selected for scr ed Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for rge cash payments made towa tatutory notices prescribed und “the Act”) were duly issued and 2 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare e by the AO under d the said addition t the Appellant had tary evidences and he genuinity of his aggregating to Rs. e carried out by one redit card, thereby ected to carry out a himself as regards that the credit card n fact carried out by e Appellant's credit rd, are that the the year under total income of rutiny under the r the purpose of ards credit card der the Income- complied with.

1 During the ass that he wa MadhyamikVid derived income sources such information av Officer noted s other modes—t the assessee. T the Assessing O

2 In response, impugned cred him. He explai cards to one S and associate, sole proprietor Engineering W sessment proceedings, the asse as employed as a Hea dhyalaya, Sapad, Kalyan, Distr e from salary, commission from as bank interest. Upon e vailable on the Insight Portal, ignificant payments—both in ca towards three credit cards held The details of such payments, Officer, were as under: Name of the Bank Am ICICI BANK LTD. Rs. 18 INDUSIND BANK LTD. Rs. 19 BI CARD AND PAYMENT SERVICES LTD. Rs. 14 Total Rs. 52, the assessee categorically ass dit-card transactions were not ined that he had handed over Shri Yogesh Abhimanyu Karbhar who was carrying on fabricatio r under the name M/s Harsh Works. It was submitted that t 3 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare essee submitted admaster with rict Thane, and m LIC, and other examination of , the Assessing ash and through d in the name of as recorded by mount ,88,000/- ,23,100/- ,76,140/- 87, 240/- serted that the undertaken by the said credit ri, a close friend n business as a Fabrication and he credit cards were utilised purchases of payments towa by him. The as financial capac expenditure of 2.3 The assessee s over in good fa In support of payment stat undertaking/co own bank sta explanation re made into each tabulated by th

4 During the cou verify the ex Assessing Offic Act to Shri Yog available in his However, no r requisition. Th assessee’s sala relating to the and Engineerin

5 In the absence from Shri Ka assessee had credit-card tr deposits aggreg credit cards we brought to tax the Act. The section 143(3)

In the appea contended that Act to Shri Yo urse of the assessment proceedi xplanation furnished by the cer issued a notice under sectio gesh Abhimanyu Karbhari at the s PAN database, i.e., gprasad19 response was received to the he Assessing Officer also obs ary account had been utilised f e business concerns of M/s Ha ng Works. e of any confirmation or supp rbhari, the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate the genu ransactions in question. Ac gating to ₹52,87,240/- made to ere treated as unexplained, and as unexplained money under t assessment was thereafter co of the Act vide order dated 19 M al before the learned CIT(A), t the notice issued under sectio ogesh Abhimanyu Karbhari was 5 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare ings, in order to assessee, the on 133(6) of the e e-mail address 970@yahoo.co.in. said statutory served that the for transactions arsh Fabrication porting material held that the uineness of the ccordingly, the owards the three d the same were the provisions of ompleted under March 2025. , the assessee on 133(6) of the s dispatched by the Faceless A in his PAN dat obsolete and n ought to have Shri Karbhari’s submitted that under section empowered to the Act and iss

1 In support of t credit cards, th a copy of the A.Y. 2023-24, Harsh Fabrica certificate issu assessee statin was not perm asserted that t to Shri Karbh account, and t of his credit however, reject observing as un

Before us, the record a Paper attention to the ICICI Bank cre ission of the appellant is not accepta mention here that the confirmation cum ted to the AO. To verify the same, th to Shri Yogesh Abhimanyu Karbh as received. Further, it was noted b unt of the appellant was also being us s Harsh fabrication and engineering w ate as to how a proprietorship bus aried employee's bank account as w d not its own bank account for its busi ontention of appellant does not pass as cited by Hon'ble Apex Court in case 80 Taxmann 89 (SC) as no prudent or bank accounts to a third party if the appellant's contention is to be ubmission of the appellant is no owards credit card transactions have b nt has been unable to explain the s sh. Merely submitting undertaking an he source of payments made towa e learned counsel for the asse r Book comprising pages 1 to 8 Abhimanyu K credit-card tra purposes of his

1 It was submitt duly explained documents, an under sectio communication longer operativ urged that, in restored to th verification of the assessee’s

2 The learned submitted tha extending his c transactions o o 74 of the Paper Book. He furt the cash deposit pay-in slips e into the ICICI Bank credit ages 24 to 33. The learned cou ertaking/confirmation furnished Karbhari acknowledging that ansactions were carried out b s fabrication business. ted that the source of the cash d through the said confirmation nd that the non-response to th on 133(6) occurred only n was sent to an e-mail addre ve. In these circumstances, the n the interest of justice, the he file of the Assessing Office the source of the cash deposi credit-card accounts. Departmental Representat at the conduct asserted by th credit cards and bank account f of a third party without con 8 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare ther invited our s pertaining to t-card account, unsel also relied d by Shri Yogesh the impugned by him for the h deposits stood and supporting he notice issued because the ess that was no learned counsel matter may be er for a proper its appearing in tive, however, he assessee—of for the business nsideration—was highly improba the assessee m or benefit for a meeting busin months. The le assessee’s exp of the cash tran including comp loan transact instruments, w

3 Notwithstandin that the matter the limited pur requested by th

We have care perused the en for adjudicatio cash deposits which were su incurred throu able. He suggested that it was might have received some form o allowing his credit-card limits t ess expenditure over a period earned DR further contended t lanation were to be accepted, t nsactions in the hands of Shri Y pliance with statutory provision tions not routed through would require examination. ng these observations, the lear r may be remanded to the Asse rpose of carrying out necessary he assessee. efully considered the rival su ntire material placed on record on pertains to the verification o made into the assessee’s credit ubsequently utilised for meeti ugh those credit cards. 9 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare s plausible that of consideration o be utilised for of two to three that, even if the the implications YogeshKarbhari, ns pertaining to account-payee rned DR agreed ssing Officer for y verification as ubmissions and . The sole issue of the source of t-card accounts, ing expenditure

1 The learned co various entrie payments of ₹ Corporation, T ₹99,500/- incu Bhiwandi (Pap counsel was u invoices, and w invoices were name of Shri assessee attrib

2 The assessee’ YogeshKarbhar Engineering Wo business purp meeting the re It is an admitte 133(6) of the A remained unre expressed read verification, as evidence estab question and th ounsel for the assessee drew o es in the credit-card statem ₹20,000/- and ₹25,000/- to V Thane (Paper Book p. 34) and urred towards Harsh Fabrication per Book p. 36). When querie unable to immediately produce was therefore directed to clarify raised in the name of the ass Yogesh Abhimanyu Karbhari butes the entire set of transactio ’s case rests on the assert ri, proprietor of M/s Harsh orks, had utilised the assessee’s oses and had deposited the ca esultant dues out of his own bo ed position that the notice issue Act by the Assessing Officer to esponded. However, before us, th diness to produce Shri Karbha s well as to furnish all supp blishing the nexus between t he latter’s business activities. 10 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare our attention to ments—such as Vighnharta Steel expenditure of n & Engineering, ed, the learned e corresponding fy whether such sessee or in the , to whom the ns. tion that Shri Fabrication & s credit cards for ash required for ooks of account. ed under section o Shri Karbhari he assessee has ari for personal porting primary the deposits in 5.3 At the same ti of the lower au not only were s card accounts used for bu Fabrication & E upon the princ the Hon’ble Su Taxmann 89 (S a salaried indi cards and bank cogent commer

4 Nonetheless, th principle that proper verificat assessee expre party. The uncorroborated a final opportu gaps pointed o being address me, we cannot ignore the factu uthorities. The Assessing Officer sizeable cash deposits made tow , but even the assessee’s sala siness-related transactions o Engineering Works. The learned ciple of human probabilities as upreme Court in SumatiDayal v SC), held that it was inherently ividual to permit unfettered u k accounts for a third party’s b rcial justification. he Tribunal is equally conscious no person should be prejudic tion when relevant material is a esses willingness to produce explanation tendered, thou d, cannot be rejected in limine w unity for proper examination. out by the revenue authorities ed through direct verification 11 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare ual observations r had noted that wards the credit- ary account was of M/s Harsh d CIT(A), relying s enunciated by v. CIT (1995) 80 y improbable for se of his credit usiness without s of the cardinal ced for want of available and the the concerned ugh presently without affording The evidentiary s are capable of of the alleged source—namel YogeshKarbhar

5 In these circu justice, we dee authorities bel Assessing Offic comprehensive online deposi accounts. The such enquiry, i of account, an warranted in th

6 It is clarified Abhimanyu Ka in support of opportunity of thereafter pass

7 The ground o allowed for stat ly, the books and financial sta ri. umstances, and in the interest em it appropriate to set aside th low and restore the matter to cer for the limited purpose of e verification of the source of its made into the assesse Assessing Officer shall be at lib including summoning parties, e nd calling for additional eviden he facts of the case. that the assessee shall produ arbhari and all relevant docum f his claim, and shall be affo f being heard. The Assessin s a speaking order in accordance of the appeal of the Assessee tistical purpose. 12 Mr. Bhausaheb B. Pansare atements of Shri t of substantial he orders of the o the file of the f carrying out a f the cash and ee’s credit-card berty to conduct examining books nce, as may be uce Shri Yogesh mentary evidence forded adequate ng Officer shall e with law. e is accordingly