MOHAMMAD SALIM AKBAR MIRZA,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD-1 , MALEGAON

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 4 Kolkatta [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 for AY 2017-18 on 14/07/2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 18/10/2019

3.5 The Assessee filed confirmations from the family members. Assessee also filed Affidavit of Mrs. Naseem Bano accepting gift of Rs.8,00,000/- given by her to her son i.e. Assesssee. Assessee filed Affidavit of Mrs. Bushra w/o Salim Mirza , confirming giving Gift of Rs.10,00,000/- to Assessee. The AO did not accept the submission of the assessee and made addition of Rs.24,33,600/-. The relevant paragraph of the Assessment Order is reproduced as under :

3.6 Thus, AO rejected it stating that evidence of income of the family members was not filed . 3.7 In this case the Assessee had filed Affidavits of the persons from whom he received cash. The AO has not doubted genuineness of these Affidavits. Once the Assessee had filed Affidavits of the persons who gave money to the Assessee, the onus shifted to the ITO. In this case the AO merely rejected the submission stating that evidence of Income of those persons not filed. However, it is noted that Assessee filed submission with Affidavits on 14/10/2019. The AO passed Assessment Order on 18/10/2019. Thus, AO had not carried out any inquiries after the submission of the Assessee. If AO had any doubts AO could have called for further details, could have issued Summons u/s 131 to those persons and recorded statements. However, instead of conducting further inquiries after the submission of the assessee, the AO preferred to merely reject the submission filed by the assessee in two sentences and passed Assessment Order within 4 days of submission. 4 3.8 In this context we will like to refer to the observations made by MESSRS MEHTA PARIKH & CO.vs Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai 1956 SCR 626 (SC), which are as under : This being the position, the state of affairs, as it ob- tained on 12th January 1946, had got to be appreciated, having, regard to those entries in the cash books and the affidavits filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, taking them at their face value. The entries in the cash books disclosed that, taking the number of high denomination notes at 18 on 2nd January 1946, there came in the custody or possession of the appellants after 2nd January 1946 and up to 12th January 1946, 49 further notes of that high denomination, making 67 such notes in the aggregate, out of which 61 such notes could be encashed by the appellants on 18th January 1946 through the Eastern Bank. A mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the Income tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not enough, without any further scrutiny, to dislodge the position taken up by the appellants, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the appellants before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 3.9 Thus, dislodge the submission of the assessee without further inquiry. 3.10 In the case of the assessee the AO has not conducted any inquiries after the submission of the assessee, and after filling of Affidavits by the assessee. 3.11 In these facts, for all the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has failed to prove that the Assessee has not proved source of cash deposits. The onus was on the AO once Assessee filed affidavits. For the said proposition, we Bombay High Court ,in the case of in the case of R.B.N.J. Naidu vs CIT 29 ITR 194. R.B.N.J. Naidu vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR194 as under : The broad fact, however, is that the assessee has made out a case which the taxing authorities have no material or information to rebut. In these circumstances, the source of the receipt should be deemed to be established, and consequently the money was not liable to be treated as the assessee's income merely because he could not explain satisfactorily how his wife made the saving and why she did not deposit it in the bank at any earlier date. In v. [1952] 22 ITR 18 the assessee firm was held to have discharged its burden when it proved the source of the moneys even though it was unable to explain how the partners got them in their native place. The same reasoning is applicable to the instant case. Our answer to the question is, therefore, in the negative. 3.12 ITAT Mumbai on identical facts in the case of Hansa Harischandra Thakur vs ITO [2026] 185 taxmann.com 516 (Mumbai - Trib.)[09-04-2026] had held as under : 24. As regards the contention of the learned DR that there exists a time gap between the receipt of cash and its deposit in the bank account, we find that the explanation offered by the assessee that the cash was retained and subsequently deposited during the demonetisation period cannot be rejected in absence of any contrary evidence. The assessee is an individual deriving only interest income, as borne out from the return of income, and no material has been brought on record to suggest existence of any alternate source of cash. In such circumstances, the explanation that the cash emanated from the disclosed sale transaction carries due evidentiary value. 25. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the evidences furnished by the assessee including third-party confirmation have remained uncontroverted, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits and discharged the onus cast upon her under the provisions of the Act. The addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- made under section 68 of the Act and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is therefore unsustainable and liable to be deleted. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 25,50,000/-. 3.13 Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, respectfully following the judicial precedence (supra),we hold that the Addition made by the AO is unsustainable. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. 4. Accordingly ground number 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Since we have allowed appeal of the assessee on merits of the addition, the legal ground raised by the assessee becomes academic in nature and hence it is dismissed as unadjudicated. 6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 May, 2026

Sd/- sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Pune; /Dated : 29 -05-2026 TNMM

Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. 5. Guard file. / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar / ITAT, Pune