RAMESH RAMDAVAR PAL,PALGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

Brief facts of the case are that the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the assessee was completed with an addition u/s 69A r.w.s 115BEE of the Act for Rs.27,46,000/-. As per the Ld. AO, the assessee has failed to prove that the cash deposited during the demonetization period are from normal business receipts and, therefore, the amount of deposit made in bank account in specified SBNs is deemed to be income of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 u/s 69A of the Act. Against the aforesaid order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed with the following observations: “3.3.4The 'bank certificate' sought to be submitted in appellate proceedings have no relevance whatsoever with respect to source and nature of the deposits. It is the AO and not the bank manager who is the competent authority to adjudge the nature, source and genuineness of the deposits. Bank manager can only certify the factum of deposit not its nature and source. It is also seen from the documents uploaded by the appellant during these proceedings that he has sought to submit the so-called confirmations from clients. Even a cursory look at these documents shows that these unsigned documents are devoid of relevant details like PAN and address of the alleged parties, or the a particulars of the claimed transaction in respect of which cash is claimed to have been given to the appellant. In summary, these self-serving recitals proposed to be submittedas evidence in these proceedings have no evidentiary value at all and are, therefore, disregarded forthwith. 3.3.5In summary, an objective consideration of the case record shows that there is material gap in appellant's evidence and, hence, the nexus between the impugned cash deposits and routine professional collections for statutory payments etc is not satisfactorily established by the appellant. The explanation as to opening cash in hand also lacks independent corroboration with detailed cash flow statements or contemporaneous records. Given these factual and evidentiary shortfalls, it must be concluded that the appellant has not fully discharged the burden of proof mandated under section 69A. Therefore, on these facts and in accordance with settled law, the 2

At the outset, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to furnish certain details before the Ld. AO. However, such details could only be furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time, but Ld. CIT(A) instead of examining such documents or referring it to the Ld. AO for a remand proceeding, rejected the same stating that such documents are self-serving recitals proposed to be substituted as evidence and have not evidentiary value. Ld. AR has furnished copies of such documents before us such as certificate from Bank of Maharashtra, summary of date wise cash deposits, cash transaction report, details of Stamp duty and registration charges paid during the period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 including list of challans paid on behalf of several clients, challan copies of index II of the document registered, confirmation letters from the parties who had given cash to the assessee for paying Stamp Duty registration charges, government charges on their behalf for the registration of agreement entered by them and the bank statement for the period from 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017.

Drawing support from the aforesaid documents, it is submitted by the assessee that the cash was deposited during the period for payment of Stamp Duty and registration fees on behalf of the clients which is now confirmed by the 3

Per contra, Ld. Senior DR supported the orders of Revenue Authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. In the present case, the assessee argued that the deposit of cash in his bank account remains an undisputed fact, but such cash was received by assessee from various clients for the purpose of registration of immovable property during the demonetization period and has furnished a list of persons from whom such cash was accepted. The assessee was unable to furnish any documentary evidence before the Ld. AO to substantiate that such money was received by him from various clients for payment of Stamp Duty. Since, the assessee has now obtained confirmation from the respective parties which are placed before us at page nos. 49 to 53 and 90 to 93 of the paper book having copies of information from the said parties making reference of payment of Stamp Duty challans, name of the client and other details. We,in the interest of justice, deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh verification, examination and adjudication to arrive at a factual and logical conclusion.

Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard in the set aside proceedings. The assessee is also

In result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-05-2026.