AMIT PATWA,CHEMBUR WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders dt. 21.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the effective ground, thereby challenging the addition made u/s 69A of the Act.
3. I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue

2
Amit Patwa, Mumbai.

authorities. From the records, I noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 31,26,700/- during the period 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Thus AO made addition of Rs. 9,34,600/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. As per revenue, the assessee could not justified the source of cash deposit is bank withdrawals and cash in hand. However, after show cause notice, it was claimed by the assessee that the same was out of sales. Since the revenue had found contradictory reply therefore addition u/s 69A of the Act was made as ‘unexplained money’.
4. However, the revenue authorities admitted that the total sales as per profit and loss account is only Rs.
19,42,135/- and therefore the cash deposit of Rs.
9,34,600/-, which was claimed to have been made out of sales and cash in hand accepted by the revenue to be genuine source of income.
5. Further, in order to substantiate the source of cash deposit, the assessee placed following documents on record:
1. Copy of Income Tax Acknowledgement; Computation of Income; Profit and Loss A/c, Balance sheet, and Form ITR 4. 2. Copy Of Confirmation for Loan Sanctioned and Repayment from Mumbai District Central Co- Op Bank Ltd
3. Copy of Gold Loan Statement- A/c No: 042180700000517
From Mumbai District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd