Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared a total income of Rs. 2,93,920/-. The AO investigated information about the assessee being a beneficiary of bogus Long Term Capital Gain. The AO found that the assessee paid Rs. 34.42 lakhs for shares and deposited Rs. 6 lakhs cash into his account, which was transferred to the broker.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not furnish sufficient details to prove the source of Rs. 6 lakhs, which was explained as past savings and gifts. Considering the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present the case.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained income is justified, and whether the assessee has provided sufficient evidence for the source of funds.
Sections Cited
148, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing : 04-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04-03-2025 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.28-11-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2018-19. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs made by the AO.
The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee filed his return of incomefor the year under considerationdeclaring a total income of Rs. 2,93,920/-. The AO received information that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of bogus Long Term Capital Gain by trading in the shares of M/s. Panafic Industrials Limited. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee has carried on trading in the above said shares through a broker, named, M/s. Deal Money Securities Private Limited. The AO noticed that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 34.42 lakhs to the above said trader for purchasing the shares. Hence, the AO asked to explain the sources of the amounts so paid to the broker. It was noticed that the assessee has, inter alia, deposited cash of Rs. 6 lakhs into his bank account on various dates and transferred the same to the broker‟s account. With regard to the sources of Rs. 6 lakhs, the assessee explained that it is out of his past savings and other income disclosed in the ITR. The AO did not accept the explanations of the assessee and accordingly assessed the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs as un-explained income u/s. 69 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the same.
We heard the parties and perused the record. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted a new explanation, viz., that the above said amount of Rs. 6 lakhs also included gifts received from relatives on various occasions. In support of the above said explanation, the assessee furnished copies of id proofs of two of his relatives. We notice that the assessee also did not furnish details of past income, savings made there from, year wise details of gifts, if any, received etc., in order to prove the cash deposits of Rs.6.00 lakhs made into the bank account of the assessee. In these set of facts, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the AO.
Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the AO for examining the same afresh. We also direct the assessee to furnish all the information/explanation and evidences to support the claim of the past income, savings and receipt of gifts. The AO, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.