SANDEEP RAMESH SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD (169)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 24/01/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2008-09.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 2,27,115/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The roots of the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 31/03/2015 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by which the returned income of the assessee at Rs. 5,34,516/- was assessed at Rs.15,80,680/- after making an addition of Rs. 11,55,000/- being cash deposit treated as undisclosed income. 4. The additions made in the assessment order were challenged by the assessee and quarrel travelled up to the Tribunal and the Co- 2 ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Sandeep Ramesh Shah vs. ITO in AY 2008-09 order dt. 10/02/2020, considered the availability of cash through withdrawal and also opening cash in hand and held as under:- “Thus, to the extent of availability of cash through withdrawal is accepted and same cannot be taken as unexplained cash deposit. The opening cash balance of Rs. 5,42,145/- was sought to be explained by the assessee through his cash summary statement for the year 2007. Looking to the average income of the assessee out of the opening cash balance of Rs. 5,42,145/-, I direct the A.O. to accept Rs. 2.50 lacs as cash in hand as on 04/01/2007. Thus, I direct the A.O. to accept availability of cash to the extent of Rs. 2.50 lacs as opening cash balance and the cash amount withdrawn from bank which was utilized for again deposit in the bank account. I direct accordingly.”