ANIL KASHINATH SALVE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN () & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () Assessment Year: 2014-15
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds: Ground No. 1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Addl / JCIT has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 85,000/- loan given by the appellant, in previo assessment year 20 filed before the A.O. Ground No. 2 In the facts and circ JCIT has erred in deposited in Bank b Manharlal Securities the details before the 2. The assessee declaring a total in income from salary a shares. The return pursuance thereof, 1961 (hereinafter re complied with. Duri Officer noticed that account immediatel Manoharlal Securitie shares. On being qu ₹85,000/- represente balance deposits we income from real est as the assessee fa documentary eviden Officer treated both as unexplained and a ITA ous year and received in current yea 014-15. Even though a confirmation le and Addl / JCIT. cumstances of the case and in law the le confirming the addition of Rs. 2,99,9 y cash and cheques issued to Share Brok s Private Limited, through the appellant h e A.O. and Addl / JCIT. filed his return of income ncome of ₹2,27,610/-. The as and was also engaged in trading so filed was selected for sc statutory notices under the I ferred to as “the Act”) were is ing the course of assessment, the assessee had deposited ca ly prior to issuance of che es Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of ueried, the assessee explained ed cash loans returned by frie ere claimed to be sourced fro tate dealings and catering cont ailed to adduce any credibl nce to substantiate the claim, the amounts, viz. ₹85,000/- an added the same to the income of Anil Kashinath Salve 2 A No. 3267/MUM/2025 ar relevant to tter has been earned Addl / 974/- amount ker M/s. Latin has submitted on 16.05.2015 ssessee derived g/speculation of crutiny, and in Income-tax Act, ssued and duly , the Assessing ash in his bank eques to M/s. f speculation in that a sum of ends, while the om commission tracts. However, le or verifiable , the Assessing nd ₹2,99,974/-, f the assessee.
1 On appeal, th Assessing Officer. It w establish, with cogen friends in earlier yea real estate or cateri produced were found regards the cash dep was found to be dev the addition was su reproduced as under “7.1 Ground n that the Ld. loans given b previous year were filed bef facts, submis record, as und Upon careful of fact and da of assessmen sources of va that he has commission fr the appellant advanced loa to furnish any real and incom written confir taken unsecu value. The ap documentary of the transac number with assessment a ITA e learned CIT(A) upheld the was held that the assessee had nt material, the advancement ars, nor could he prove the alleg ing contracts. The handwritten d to be of no evidentiary valu posit of ₹2,99,974/-, the assesse void of supporting material, an ustained. The relevant finding : no.01 raised by the appellant is related w AO has erred in adding full, Rs.85,000 y the appellant in earlier year and receiv r relevant to AY 2014-15 even though co fore the AO which is adjudicated on mer ssion filed by the appellant and materia der:- perusal of the impugned assessment ord ata available on record it is seen that dur nt proceedings, on being asked about th arious cash deposits in bank, the appell received cash loan returned back by from real estates and income from certain t could not proov its contention as to ans to his friends. Further, the appellant y documentary evidence in respect of com me from catering contract etc. except the c rmation from the persons who was st ured loans from the appellant which has n ppellant has failed to furnish the releva evidence which would substantiate the ctions viz copy of aadhar card, PAN and h transaction details etc., during th as well as appellate proceedings. E TAX D Anil Kashinath Salve 3 A No. 3267/MUM/2025 action of the not been able to of any loans to ged income from n confirmations ue. Similarly, as ee’s explanation d consequently, of ld CIT(A) is with the issue 0/- amount of ved during the mplete details rit of the case, al available on der, statement ring the course he nature and lant explained y the friends, n contracts but when he had t utterly failed mmission from copies of hand tated to have no evidentiary ant supporting e genuineness bank account he course of DEPARTME
Considering t has correctly
Rs.85,000/- i consideration infirmity and 01 raised in herewith.
7.2 Ground n that the Ld.
deposited in b
Latin Manhar was submitte case, facts, su on record, as Upon careful that during deposited cas maintained w source and n evidences, th statement of maintained no.41450201
Further, the consideration and short ter the share tra appellant file
And copy of S statement of s loss of Rs. 1,
Further, upon during the y appellant ha immediately s about the sou utterly failed amounting to provided to th
As the appella evidence/reas as well as app passed the ITA the above foregoing discussion it is held passed the assessment order making a in the income of the appellant during th n and the assessment order passed by t need not to be interfered with. According n this appeal being devoid of merit no.02 raised by the appellant is related w
. AO has erred in adding Rs.2,99,9
bank by cash and cheques issued to shar rlal Securities Pvt. Ltd., even though prope ed before the AO which is adjudicated o ubmission filed by the appellant and mat under:- perusal of the impugned assessment or the year under consideration, the a sh amounting to Rs.6,82,591/- in his with Union Bank of India. On being ask ature of the said cash deposit alongwith he AR of the appellant submitted the f the appellant bearing account no.3
with State
Bank of India a 0009340 maintained with Union Ba appellant submitted that during the n he had traded in equity shares both i rm sale of shares and the source of the ading was earlier years savings and in d copy of contract note for sale of share
STT return i.e Form-10DB certificate. The a speculation loss of Rs.47,968/- and shor
12,555/-.
n perusal of bank statement of Union B year under consideration, the AO obse ad made cash deposits on various same had been withdrawn by cheque. On urce and nature of various cash deposits, d to explain satisfactorily source of Rs.2,99,974/- even though hearing oppo he appellant in this regard.
ant utterly failed to furnish any clinching sonable explanation during the course o pellate proceedings, it is held that the AO assessment order by making an Anil Kashinath Salve
4
A No. 3267/MUM/2025
d that the AO an addition of he year under the AO has no gly, Ground no is dismissed with the issue
974/- amount re broker M/s.
er explanation on merit of the terial available rder it is seen appellant has bank account ked about the h documentary bank account
30028228987
and account ank of India.
e year under in speculation investment in n support the es of IGL Ltd.
appellant filed rt term capital
Bank of India rved that the s dates and n being asked the appellant cash deposit ortunities were g documentary of assessment
O has correctly addition of Rs.2,99,974/
income of the assessment o to be interfer appeal being
3. Before us, the le the assessee had s assessment year, wh deposits. In support
India and State Ba withdrawals of ₹2,7
further submitted th had repaid cash loan were already filed bef
3.1 We have careful material placed on re it is evident that th earlier years stand v of cash in hand, the stand duly explaine considered view that are unsustainable. A delete the additions.
assessee are accordin
ITA
- credit in the bank as unexplained cash e appellant during the year under cons order passed by the AO has no infirmity red with. Accordingly, Ground no 02 r devoid of merit is dismissed herewith.”
earned Counsel for the assessee sufficient cash withdrawals in hich were available to explain
, copies of bank statements of ank of India were furnished,
79,500/- and ₹98,000/- respe hat confirmations obtained from ns to the assessee alongwith b fore the AO and ld CIT(A).
lly perused the rival contention ecord. On examination of the ba he withdrawals as claimed by verified. Thus, to the extent of s deposits made in the year unde ed. In these circumstances, t the additions sustained by the Accordingly, we direct the Asse
The ground No. 1 and 2 of th ngly allowed.
Anil Kashinath Salve
5
A No. 3267/MUM/2025
h credit in the sideration the and need not raised in this e submitted that n the preceding n the impugned f Union Bank of demonstrating ectively. It was m persons who bank statements ns as well as the ank statements, the assessee in such availability er consideration we are of the e learned CIT(A) essing Officer to he appeal of the 4. In the result, th
Order pronoun (SANDEEP G
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 26/08/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
ITA he appeal of the assessee stands ced in the open Court on 26/0
-
GOSAIN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Anil Kashinath Salve
6
A No. 3267/MUM/2025
allowed.
08/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai