SHINGAVI SUMITKUMAR DILIPCHAND,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-13 [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) for AY 2020-21 on 11-11-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 29-04-2025. 2. Findings and analysis :

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case assessee had filed return of income for AY. 2020-21 on 31-12-2020. The assessee is a salaried employee working in Salesforce.com Singapore Pte Ltd. During the period, assessee was stationed at Singapore. The Assessing Officer had received information from DDIT, Inv. Unit- 1(2), Pune. Based on the information the AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 28-03-2024. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by ITO, Ward-1(5),

2 Aurangabad. The ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad transferred assessee's case to ITO(IT), Ward-4, Pune. The ITO(IT), Ward-4, Pune, herein after referred as AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The assessee filed copy of passport, copy of purchase agreement, copy of bank statement, details of payments made for the property, copy of employment letter, copy of return of income filed in Singapore for the year 2019 and 2020, copy of foreign DBS bank account statement. The assessee denied any cash payment made for purchase of flat. The AO issued show cause notice. The assessee reiterated with the submission. In this case, assessee had purchased some flat from City Corporation Ltd. There was a search u/s. 132 of the Act in the case of City Corporation Ltd. on 15-02-2023. There was a search at the residential premises of Mr. Chetan Borawake, who was office boy working in City Group. He has staying in one of the chawls, Hadapsar, Pune. Certain documents were found at the premises of Mr. Chetan, who made a statement that those documents were maintained as per the directions of Mr. Prashant Pathak and Mr. Atul Gogavle of City Group. In the assessment order, the AO has relied on the excel sheet which was provided to the AO by the DDIT. It has been alleged that the assessee had paid Rs. 19 lakhs on money for Flat No. 038-21-07, 038-21-08 and 038-21-09 in Adreno Towers. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that assessee has purchased only one Flat No. 038-2107, Adreno Towers. The assessee filed details of payments made by the assessee and evidences of payment along with receipts issued by City Corporation Ltd. Assessee categorically denied any cash payment made. Assessee also filed the copy of the bank statement. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that assessee was an NRI and he had never entered into any cash transactions. However, the AO made an addition of Rs. 19 lakhs u/s. 69 of the Act.

3

a.Mr. Chetan Borawake (Office Boy at CCL) b.Mr. Aniruddha Deshpande(Chairman & Managing Director of CCL) c.Mr. Atul Gogawale (Assistant Manager of Sales, CCL)

Thus, all the three persons of CCL have retracted their statements. Therefore, neither there is any incriminating document nor any statement with the AO for alleging on money payments. In this case, it is important to understand that during the relevant period, assessee was working in Singapore. Assessee had received his salary, Singapore entity which was deposited by the assessee in his bank account maintained with DBS Bank. All these details were available with the AO and AO has not brought out any defects in the sale documents. Therefore, based on totality of facts, we are of the considered opinion that AO has failed to prove any cash payment made by the assessee to CCL. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 19 lakhs.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st May, 2026 (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 21-05-2026 TNMM

4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent