ANEESH TRADERS,JVPD SCHEME,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN ,MUMBAI

On the fact law the Ld. C 69A of the In reasons state 3. On the fact law the Ld. C making an ad Bank Account 69A of the In the impugned 2. Briefly stated, t its return of incom ₹7,45,010/-. The re selected for scrutiny 1961 (in short ‘the A Thereafter, the Asse section 142(1) of the 29.11.2019, and 19 comply with the same 2.1 During the cou that the assessee had Bank account du 09.11.2016 to 31.1 transaction enquiries sourced out of withd 07.11.2016. However on record to substan analysing the detail ITA ts and circumstances of the Appellant's ca CIT(A) erred in invoking the provisions ncome Tax Act, 1961 in the Appellant's ed in the impugned order or otherwise. ts and circumstances of the Appellant's ca CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of L ddition of Rs. 72,40,000/- being cash de t, by treating the same as unexplained m ncome Tax Act, 1961, as per the reasons d order or otherwise. the facts of the case are that th me on 29.03.2018 declaring t eturn of income filed by the and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act’) was issued and served upo essing Officer issued multiple e Act on 20.07.2019, 05.10.20 9.12.2019. However, the ass e. urse of assessment proceedings d deposited a sum of ₹72,00,000 uring the demonetisation p 2.2016. In an online respons s, the assessee claimed that th drawals made during the period r, no cogent documentary evide ntiate such claim. The Assessi ls, recorded findings that: (i) Aneesh Traders 2 A No. 1298/MUM/2025 ase and in of section s case, for ase and in Ld. A.O. in eposited in money u/s s stated in he assessee filed total income of e assessee was Income-tax Act, on the assessee. notices under 19, 15.11.2019, essee failed to , it was noticed 0/- in his HDFC period between se during cash he deposits were d 01.04.2016 to ence was placed ng Officer, after cash deposits during demonetisatio explanation; (ii) no co were produced; (iii) n withdrawals was furn balance between unexplained. In abs Officer invoked sec ₹72,40,000/- as unex 115BBE at the prescr 3. On appeal, the opportunities on sev para 5.1 of the impu reproduced as under 5.1 Background fac The appellant was a of the grounds of app

07.2024 1 01.08.2024 1 12.11.2024 1 02.12.2024 0 03.12.2024 1 3.1 Despite such re written submissions Consequently, the Ld unexplained cash d section 133(6) of the thus, the action of t justified. The relevan “6.1.6 Support of the that in absence of unexplained money the Assessing Office deposit as unexplain important to recall th the information abo Officer also got confi the same figure of 133(6) of the Act. attributed the sourc the period 1.4.201 assessment order; d any documentary ev that the total cash Rs.72,40,000 (para statement by the as higher figure of Rs.7 the assessment. In action of the Assess a strong legal and lo is being dismissed.” ITA

07.2024 Adjournment- Partner of th assessee’s firm is bedridd 14.08.2024 No reply 18.11.2024 No reply 09.12.2024 No reply 11.12.2024 Adjournment- Partner of th assessee’s firm is bedridd peated opportunities, the asses s nor adduced any suppor d. CIT(A) upheld the assessment deposits, duly confirmed by th e Act, fell within the ambit of se the Assessing Officer was legall t finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduc e above decision is taken only to emphas any explanation, bank deposits can b under section 69A of the Income tax Act er has not committed any error in treatin ned money under section 69A of the Ac hat the trigger for initiation of action in thi out cash deposit of Rs.72,00,000. The firmation from the HDFC Bank about cash money, after calling for information un The assessee, in the online cash resp ce of cash deposits to be cash withdraw 6 to 7.11.2046. However, as mention despite being specifically asked for, it ha vidence regarding the same. Further, it h deposited during the demonetisation 23 of the assessment order). Based ssessee, the Assessing Officer had to co 72,40,000 as unexplained money while absence of any explanation from the as ing Officer in taking the admitted deposi ogical backing. Therefore, Ground No 1 of ” Aneesh Traders 4 A No. 1298/MUM/2025 he den. he den. see neither filed rting evidence. t, observing that he bank under ection 69A, and ly and factually ced as under: sise the fact e taken as t. Therefore, ng the cash ct. It is also is case was Assessing h deposit of nder section ponse, has wals during ned in the as not given has stated n period is on such a onsider the completing sessee, the t figure has f the appeal

Before us, the L to serious illness o bedridden, the as proceedings before th now seeks to place r cash deposits and pr justice. 4.1 We have heard t record. It is not in di opportunities before settled proposition th substantial justice. W cause for non-comp material evidence, o particularly when the this backdrop, and rules of procedure ar not to thwart it, we d file of the Ld. CIT(A) under an obligation t of its claim that cas were sourced out of due opportunity to ITA