SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common

order dated 12/09/2019 passed by the order dated 12/09/2019 passed by the Ld. Commission Commissioner of

Income-tax (Appeals) tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [in short the Ld. 47, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for

assessment year 2011 assessment year 2011-12 , 2013-14 and 2014-15 15 respectively.

These appeals being connected with the same assessee, were heard These appeals being connected with the same assessee, were heard These appeals being connected with the same assessee, were heard

together and dispose together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for off by way of this consolidated order for

convenience and avoid repetition of facts. convenience and avoid repetition of facts.

7218/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2011 7218/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2011-12. The grounds raised 12. The grounds raised

by the assessee are reproduced as under: reproduced as under:

“Ground No. 1:

Hitendra C. Ghadia 3 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

Without Prejudice to the aforesaid ground ce to the aforesaid ground

Ground No. 2

Ground No. 3

The appellant craves leave to add to ppellant craves leave to add to, alter any/ or amend the foregoing , alter any/ or amend the foregoing grounds of appeal.” grounds of appeal.”

individual, was engaged in the business of civil construction, individual, was engaged in the business of civil construction, individual, was engaged in the business of civil construction,

deriving income from house deriving income from house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and

other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of

the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), was carried out by the ‘the Act’), was carried out by the

Investigation Wing of the of the Income Tax Department Income Tax Department, Mumbai at

premises of the assess premises of the assessee on 28/01/2015. Consequently, notice ee on 28/01/2015. Consequently, notice

under section 153A of the under section 153A of the Act was issued asking the assessee to file was issued asking the assessee to file

Hitendra C. Ghadia 4 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

return of income. In response return of income. In response, the assessee filed return of income return of income

on 06/07/2016 declaring total income on 06/07/2016 declaring total income at Rs.11,06,293/ 11,06,293/-. The

assessment under sect assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act

was was was completed completed completed on on on 27/12/2016 27/12/2016 27/12/2016 after after after making making making various various various

addition/disallowances. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed addition/disallowances. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed addition/disallowances. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed

part relief. Aggrieved with the part relief. Aggrieved with the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), sustained by the Ld. CIT(A),

the assessee is in appeal appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds , raising the grounds as

reproduced above.

paper book containing pages 1 to 90. The paper book containing pages 1 to 90. The learned counsel learned counsel also filed

a paperbook containing additional evidence paperbook containing additional evidences along with petition along with petition

dated 04/06/2021 for admission of those additional evidences. The dated 04/06/2021 for admission of those additional evidences. The dated 04/06/2021 for admission of those additional evidences. The

learned counsel also filed compilation of decisions relied upon. also filed compilation of decisions relied upon. also filed compilation of decisions relied upon.

lakh made by the Assessing Officer in lakh made by the Assessing Officer in relation to investment for relation to investment for

purchase of a plot of land at Panvel, near Mumbai. purchase of a plot of land at Panvel, near Mumbai.

search action carried out search action carried out at the premises of the assessee the premises of the assessee, receipts of

Hitendra C. Ghadia 5 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

payment including cash as well as che t including cash as well as cheque were found and se found and seized,

which have been inventoriz which have been inventorized during search as Page No. 2 to 10 of as Page No. 2 to 10 of

document Bundle No. 5. These document document Bundle No. 5. These documents contain receipts of contain receipts of Rs.25

lakh in cash issued by lakh in cash issued by ‘Bhoir’ family Members against plot No. 59, family Members against plot No. 59,

sector -5, Karanjade, Panvel. The 5, Karanjade, Panvel. The other document seized in same document seized in same

bundle at page No. 30 to 60 bundle at page No. 30 to 60, are the copies of allotment are the copies of allotment same plot of

land (hereinafter shall be referred as the plot) to hereinafter shall be referred as the plot) to ‘Bhoir Bhoir’ family by

the “City and Industrial Development Corporation City and Industrial Development Corporation City and Industrial Development Corporation” (CIDCO),

Maharashtra. During the cou . During the course of the assessment proceedings rse of the assessment proceedings, the

Assessing Officer asked Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain source of the cash the assessee to explain source of the cash

payment. It was explained by the assessee that said plot had been It was explained by the assessee that said plot had been It was explained by the assessee that said plot had been

purchased in name of purchased in name of ‘Hitendra Ghadia & Sons HUF & Sons HUF’ of which he is

the Karta and not b and not by him in his personal capacity. The assessee y him in his personal capacity. The assessee

denied having made any payment prior to 11 denied having made any payment prior to 11th No Nov., 2010. The

assessee contended that the prior payments reflected in the receipt assessee contended that the prior payments reflected in the receipt assessee contended that the prior payments reflected in the receipt

are from M/s KGN builders to the are from M/s KGN builders to the ‘Bhoir’ Family. He further Family. He further

submitted that the sei submitted that the seized documents include a Tripartite agreement zed documents include a Tripartite agreement

dated 11th Nov. 2010 . 2010 for purchase of this plot, wherein Bhoir fa wherein Bhoir family

were the assigners/Vendors were the assigners/Vendors, M/s KGN Builders and developers , M/s KGN Builders and developers

Hitendra C. Ghadia 6 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

(KGN) was a confirming party and Hitendra (KGN) was a confirming party and Hitendra Ghadia& Sons HUF Ghadia& Sons HUF

through its Karta (i.e i.e. the assessee) was the assignee/ Purchaser. the assessee) was the assignee/ Purchaser.

cheque payments of Rs.50,000/ cheque payments of Rs.50,000/- (seized page No. 61) and seized page No. 61) and

Rs.1,50,000/- (seized page No. 62 (seized page No. 62) are appearing in the books of ) are appearing in the books of

accounts of the assessee accounts of the assessee therefore, cash payment is also presumed therefore, cash payment is also presumed

to have been made by the assessee to Bhor family and no source of to have been made by the assessee to Bhor family and no source of to have been made by the assessee to Bhor family and no source of

which has been explained explained by the assessee, therefore therefore, same was held

as unexplained investment of the assessee. as unexplained investment of the assessee.

relevant material on record. relevant material on record.

8.1 Before us the Before us the learned counsel of the assessee of the assessee has filed

additional evidence and submitted that initially M/s KGN agreed to additional evidence and submitted that initially M/s KGN agreed to additional evidence and submitted that initially M/s KGN agreed to

purchase this plot from Bhor family and made payments purchase this plot from Bhor family and made payments purchase this plot from Bhor family and made payments by

cheques as well as by cash ( l as by cash (including the cash receipt under including the cash receipt under

reference). She further further referred to 12 cheques from m/s KGN in to 12 cheques from m/s KGN in

favour of Bhoir family including the cheques receipts in seized r family including the cheques receipts in seized r family including the cheques receipts in seized

document under reference. The document under reference. The learned counsel submitted that

Hitendra C. Ghadia 7 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

Assessing Officer has Assessing Officer has added the cash payment on the added the cash payment on the presumption

that cheque receipt of that cheque receipt of Rs.1.5 lakh bearing Ch no. 041215 dated 1.5 lakh bearing Ch no. 041215 dated

15/09/2010 of IDBI Bank ( seized docuemrnt No. 62 ) and Rs. 5.00 15/09/2010 of IDBI Bank ( seized docuemrnt No. 62 ) and Rs. 5.00 15/09/2010 of IDBI Bank ( seized docuemrnt No. 62 ) and Rs. 5.00

Lakhs bearing Cheque No. 041218 of IDBI dated 29/10/2010 ( Lakhs bearing Cheque No. 041218 of IDBI dated 29/10/2010 ( Lakhs bearing Cheque No. 041218 of IDBI dated 29/10/2010 (

seized document No. 69) ar seized document No. 69) are recorded in the books of accounts of e recorded in the books of accounts of

the assessee and held that since the seized cheque the assessee and held that since the seized cheque receipts are receipts are duly

recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which are found recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which are found recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which are found

to be for actual transaction, the natural to be for actual transaction, the natural corrolary is that the cash is that the cash

receipt are also actual payment. But the lso actual payment. But the learned counsel learned counsel of the

assessee submitted that above assessee submitted that above-mentioned cheques were issued by mentioned cheques were issued by

KGN and appearing in their books of account and not in the books KGN and appearing in their books of account and not in the books KGN and appearing in their books of account and not in the books

on account of the assessee or his HUF. In view of the of the assessee or his HUF. In view of the of the assessee or his HUF. In view of these additional

evidences filed, the learned counsel learned counsel submitted that issue might be submitted that issue might be

restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Before us the assessee restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Before us the assessee restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Before us the assessee

has filed following additional evidences: has filed following additional evidences:

Sr. No. Particulars Pg. No. As regards Ground No. 2 As regards Ground No. 2 1. Copy of Balance Sheet for AY Copy of Balance Sheet for AY 2011-12 of 1 1-3 Hitendra Ghadia & Sons (HUF) Hitendra Ghadia & Sons (HUF) 2. Copy of Bank Statement for AY 2011 Copy of Bank Statement for AY 2011-12 of 4 4-6 Hitendra Ghadia & Sons (HUF) Hitendra Ghadia & Sons (HUF) 3. Copies of 12 cheques from M/s KGN Copies of 12 cheques from M/s KGN 7 7-18 Builders and Developers in favour of Builders and Developers in favour of Bhoir Family Bhoir Family

Hitendra C. Ghadia 8 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

in the receipts matching with pho in the receipts matching with photocopy of cheques issued by KGN tocopy of cheques issued by KGN,

which have been filed which have been filed as additional evidence, but same need proper as additional evidence, but same need proper

and detailed verification by the Assessing Officer. nd detailed verification by the Assessing Officer.

8.3 We find that in view of receipts of cash payment found from We find that in view of receipts of cash payment found from We find that in view of receipts of cash payment found from

the premises of the assessee, the Assessing Officer invoked section the premises of the assessee, the Assessing Officer invoked section the premises of the assessee, the Assessing Officer invoked section

132(4A) read with section 292C of the 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Act and held that because and held that because

those receipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the ceipt of cash payments were found in possession of the

assessee therefore it was presumed that those belongs to the assessee therefore it was presumed that those belongs to the assessee therefore it was presumed that those belongs to the

assessee and contents contents thereon are true. This presumption u/s resumption u/s

132(4A) is rebuttable presumptio 132(4A) is rebuttable presumption, but before lower authorities n, but before lower authorities, the

assessee did not attempt not attempt to rebut the same. For the to rebut the same. For the first time before

us, the assessee has filed additional evidence to rebut that those , the assessee has filed additional evidence to rebut that those , the assessee has filed additional evidence to rebut that those

receipts of cash payments pertain to other person and attempted to receipts of cash payments pertain to other person and attempted to receipts of cash payments pertain to other person and attempted to

subsatntite also.

8.4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel it In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel it In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel it

appropriate to admit these additional evidences and admit these additional evidences and admit these additional evidences and restore this

Hitendra C. Ghadia 9 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

issue of addition of Rs. of Rs.25 lakh paid as cash against the plot to 25 lakh paid as cash against the plot to, the

file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. The asses fresh. The assessee is

directed to file copy of the original evidences before the Assessing directed to file copy of the original evidences before the Assessing directed to file copy of the original evidences before the Assessing

Officer and will be at liberty to file any other evidence. If required for Officer and will be at liberty to file any other evidence. If required for Officer and will be at liberty to file any other evidence. If required for

verification by the Assessing Officer, the assessee shall produce the verification by the Assessing Officer, the assessee shall produce the verification by the Assessing Officer, the assessee shall produce the

principal officer of KGN and member principal officer of KGN and members of Bhoir family for verification family for verification

of the facts of the claim of the assessee that those cas of the facts of the claim of the assessee that those cas of the facts of the claim of the assessee that those cash payments

were made by the KGN were made by the KGN. The assessee may also produce books of . The assessee may also produce books of

account of KGN for verification. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to account of KGN for verification. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to account of KGN for verification. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to

carry out the inquiries which deemed fit in the facts and carry out the inquiries which deemed fit in the facts and carry out the inquiries which deemed fit in the facts and

circumstances of the case for verification of the original evidences circumstances of the case for verification of the original evidences circumstances of the case for verification of the original evidences

filed by the assessee. The ground essee. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee of the appeal of the assessee

is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

with the addition of with the addition of Rs.25 lakh, which we have 25 lakh, which we have adjudicated in

ground No. 1 of the appeal 1 of the appeal of the assessee. So no separate So no separate

adjudication of ground No. 2 of ground No. 2 is required.

Hitendra C. Ghadia 10 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

The grounds raised by the assessee The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: reproduced as under:

“Ground No.1

which is reproduced as under: which is reproduced as under:

“Additional Additional Ground Ground No. No. 1 1 - Additions Additions made made without without considering the fact that no relevant incriminating material or considering the fact that no relevant incriminating material or considering the fact that no relevant incriminating material or evidence was found or seized during the search in respect of evidence was found or seized during the search in respect of evidence was found or seized during the search in respect of unsecured loans unsecured loans.”

order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act

addition of Rs.19,82,000/ 82,000/- has been made for holding the has been made for holding the

unsecured loans of Rs.9, Rs.9,72,000/- from Sh Rajesh Munjapara and

Hitendra C. Ghadia 11 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

Rs.10,10,000/- from from Sh Ketan Munjapara as unexplained cash Ketan Munjapara as unexplained cash

credit.

of Sh. Rajesh Munjapara Rajesh Munjapara (HUF) and his statement recorded in the statement recorded in the

course of the survey which was carried out as part of the search course of the survey which was carried out as part of the search course of the survey which was carried out as part of the search

proceeding on ‘Millenium Group Millenium Group’ including the assessee. For ready including the assessee. For ready

reference, said statement reference, said statement is reproduced by the Assessing Officer reproduced by the Assessing Officer, is

extracted as under:

“59.2 The facts are that during the course of the survey facts are that during the course of the survey facts are that during the course of the survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act in the case of M/s Millenium operation u/s. 133A of the Act in the case of M/s Millenium operation u/s. 133A of the Act in the case of M/s Millenium Corporation, a statement of Shri Rajesh Munjapara, was Corporation, a statement of Shri Rajesh Munjapara, was Corporation, a statement of Shri Rajesh Munjapara, was recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. The said statement is recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. The said statement is recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. The said statement is incriminating in nature and hence the rel incriminating in nature and hence the relevant portion of the evant portion of the same is reproduced as under: same is reproduced as under:

“Q.4 You have a saving bank account bearing no. 35640 in You have a saving bank account bearing no. 35640 in You have a saving bank account bearing no. 35640 in Abhyuday Coooperative Bank Ltd, CBD Belapur branch. It is Abhyuday Coooperative Bank Ltd, CBD Belapur branch. It is Abhyuday Coooperative Bank Ltd, CBD Belapur branch. It is seen that there are numerous transactions in this bank seen that there are numerous transactions in this bank seen that there are numerous transactions in this bank account, since 20.06.2012 to 07.011. account, since 20.06.2012 to 07.011.2014. It is seen that you 2014. It is seen that you have received a Cheque of Rs. 8 Lakh for Millennium Icon and have received a Cheque of Rs. 8 Lakh for Millennium Icon and have received a Cheque of Rs. 8 Lakh for Millennium Icon and there are cash deposits of Rs. 1,49,000/ there are cash deposits of Rs. 1,49,000/- further, the amount further, the amount of Rs. 9,47,050/ of Rs. 9,47,050/- is transferred of M/s. B M Buildcon and is transferred of M/s. B M Buildcon and after multiple transanctions it is seen that Rs. after multiple transanctions it is seen that Rs. 9.72 Lakh was 9.72 Lakh was paid to Shi Hitendra Ghadia. Further on 06.01.2014 there is paid to Shi Hitendra Ghadia. Further on 06.01.2014 there is paid to Shi Hitendra Ghadia. Further on 06.01.2014 there is

Hitendra C. Ghadia 12 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

receipt of Rs. 1,99,725/ receipt of Rs. 1,99,725/- as gift and Rs. 3.69 lakh has been as gift and Rs. 3.69 lakh has been received on account of interior work of flat 1702 in Millennium received on account of interior work of flat 1702 in Millennium received on account of interior work of flat 1702 in Millennium Icon and ultimately all the deposits in the bank account Icon and ultimately all the deposits in the bank account Icon and ultimately all the deposits in the bank account are transferred to Shri Hitendra Gadia. Please explain the details transferred to Shri Hitendra Gadia. Please explain the details transferred to Shri Hitendra Gadia. Please explain the details of the transactions with Millenium Corporation and with of the transactions with Millenium Corporation and with of the transactions with Millenium Corporation and with Hitendra Ghadia. Also provide the details of any work done Hitendra Ghadia. Also provide the details of any work done Hitendra Ghadia. Also provide the details of any work done by you for the Millennium Corporation or her sister concerns. by you for the Millennium Corporation or her sister concerns. by you for the Millennium Corporation or her sister concerns. Have you giv Have you given any unsecured loan to any of the above en any unsecured loan to any of the above mentioned persons? mentioned persons?

Ans. I know the bank account Abhyudaya Bank. I have not Ans. I know the bank account Abhyudaya Bank. I have not Ans. I know the bank account Abhyudaya Bank. I have not done any work for Millenium Icon. I don’t know the tran done any work for Millenium Icon. I don’t know the tran done any work for Millenium Icon. I don’t know the tran- sactions in the bak account no: 354540. I gave pre sactions in the bak account no: 354540. I gave pre sactions in the bak account no: 354540. I gave pre-singed cheques to Shi Kishor Kum cheques to Shi Kishor Kumar Ghadia. He only operated this ar Ghadia. He only operated this bank account and I am not known any of the entry bank account and I am not known any of the entry bank account and I am not known any of the entry in the bank account. I have not deposited any cash in this account. I bank account. I have not deposited any cash in this account. I bank account. I have not deposited any cash in this account. I have done a small work of furniture in flat no. 1702 for Shri have done a small work of furniture in flat no. 1702 for Shri have done a small work of furniture in flat no. 1702 for Shri Kishor Kumar Ghadia for Rs. 2.5 lakh appro Kishor Kumar Ghadia for Rs. 2.5 lakh approximately. He has ximately. He has not paid any amount to me till date for this work also. I don’t not paid any amount to me till date for this work also. I don’t not paid any amount to me till date for this work also. I don’t know any gift received to me and I have not deposited any gift know any gift received to me and I have not deposited any gift know any gift received to me and I have not deposited any gift in this bank account. This deposit must be done by Shri in this bank account. This deposit must be done by Shri in this bank account. This deposit must be done by Shri Kishor Ghadia. I have not given any loan or any payment Kishor Ghadia. I have not given any loan or any payment Kishor Ghadia. I have not given any loan or any payment to the persons said by you in the question or any other related the persons said by you in the question or any other related the persons said by you in the question or any other related party of them. I have also not received anything from them. party of them. I have also not received anything from them. party of them. I have also not received anything from them.

Q.6 It is seen that there is saving bank account of your brother Q.6 It is seen that there is saving bank account of your brother Q.6 It is seen that there is saving bank account of your brother Shri Ketan Munjapara bearing account number 35639 and Shri Ketan Munjapara bearing account number 35639 and Shri Ketan Munjapara bearing account number 35639 and similar trans similar transactions are seen in this bank account also. actions are seen in this bank account also. Whether your brother anytime stayed here and done any Whether your brother anytime stayed here and done any Whether your brother anytime stayed here and done any

Hitendra C. Ghadia 13 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

work for Millennium or Ghadia family or any sister concern of work for Millennium or Ghadia family or any sister concern of work for Millennium or Ghadia family or any sister concern of them? Did he received any payment to them? them? Did he received any payment to them?

Ans. As per my information he has not worked for any Ans. As per my information he has not worked for any Ans. As per my information he has not worked for any of this concern or person. He stayed here for 3 years from 2010 to concern or person. He stayed here for 3 years from 2010 to concern or person. He stayed here for 3 years from 2010 to 2013. Now he stays in Indore and doing some service. I talked 2013. Now he stays in Indore and doing some service. I talked 2013. Now he stays in Indore and doing some service. I talked with him on phone and he told that I don’t know any with him on phone and he told that I don’t know any with him on phone and he told that I don’t know any transactions in the bank account and he has not given or transactions in the bank account and he has not given or transactions in the bank account and he has not given or received any payme received any payment from these persons or concerns.” nt from these persons or concerns.”

was unaware of the transaction in the bank account No. 35640 of was unaware of the transaction in the bank account No. 35640 of was unaware of the transaction in the bank account No. 35640 of

his HUF and had given pre his HUF and had given pre-signed cheques to sh Kishor Ghadia. He cheques to sh Kishor Ghadia. He

even further admitted that he was unaware of the deposits made in even further admitted that he was unaware of the deposits made in even further admitted that he was unaware of the deposits made in

the said bank account and the said bank account and same might have been done by might have been done by Sh

Kihore Ghadia. He also talked to his brother Ghadia. He also talked to his brother Ketan Munjapa and Ketan Munjapa and

confirmed same thing about account o ng about account of his brother f his brother. Though the

assessee submitted confirmation of loan from Sh Rajesh Munjapara assessee submitted confirmation of loan from Sh Rajesh Munjapara assessee submitted confirmation of loan from Sh Rajesh Munjapara

and Ketan Munjapara along with the acknowledgement of income and Ketan Munjapara along with the acknowledgement of income and Ketan Munjapara along with the acknowledgement of income

tax return, computation of income and bank statement, the tax return, computation of income and bank statement, the tax return, computation of income and bank statement, the

Assessing Officer rejected the same and held t Assessing Officer rejected the same and held that genuinenes hat genuineness of

the transaction and creditworthiness the transaction and creditworthiness of the lenders were not of the lenders were not

satisfactory. The Ld. CIT(A) observed return of income of both the satisfactory. The Ld. CIT(A) observed return of income of both the satisfactory. The Ld. CIT(A) observed return of income of both the

Hitendra C. Ghadia 14 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

unsecured loan parties and concluded parties do not have any unsecured loan parties and concluded parties do not have any unsecured loan parties and concluded parties do not have any

substantial source of income to offer a loan of substantial source of income to offer a loan of this amount to the this amount to the

assessee, therefore he upheld the addition assessee, therefore he upheld the addition of unexplained cash of unexplained cash

credit made by the Assessing Officer. credit made by the Assessing Officer.

factual paperbook containing pages ( al paperbook containing pages (1 to 12) and petition 1 to 12) and petition admitting

for additional evidence along with additional eviden additional evidence along with additional eviden additional evidence along with additional evidence paperbook

containing pages (1 to 21). The 1 to 21). The learned counsel learned counsel also filed

compilation of the decisions relied upon. compilation of the decisions relied upon.

14.1 Before us the learned learned counsel of the assessee submitted that l of the assessee submitted that

statement by Sh Rajesh Munj statement by Sh Rajesh Munjapara before the apara before the Income-tax

Authorities was given under coercion and was given under coercion and undue pressure and for undue pressure and for

substantiating, the same the same, the learned counsel has filed an affidavit has filed an affidavit

from Sh Rajesh Munjapara to the effect that statement before the Munjapara to the effect that statement before the Munjapara to the effect that statement before the

authorities was given under pressure. The authorities was given under pressure. The learned counsel learned counsel

submitted that the statement was recorded under coercion and submitted that the statement was recorded under coercion and submitted that the statement was recorded under coercion and

pressure apparently due to following reasons: pressure apparently due to following reasons:

Hitendra C. Ghadia 15 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

“7.6.1.1. In his statement on oath, Raje In his statement on oath, Rajesh Munjapara at sh Munjapara at question 3 mentioned that he did not file return of income question 3 mentioned that he did not file return of income question 3 mentioned that he did not file return of income because his income is below taxable limit. However, it is because his income is below taxable limit. However, it is because his income is below taxable limit. However, it is submitted that Rajesh Munjapara has been filing his return of submitted that Rajesh Munjapara has been filing his return of submitted that Rajesh Munjapara has been filing his return of income as against mentioned in the statement erroneously income as against mentioned in the statement erroneously income as against mentioned in the statement erroneously and to substantiate the same, the last return which was filed to substantiate the same, the last return which was filed to substantiate the same, the last return which was filed by him before the date of statement recorded on 29.01.2015 by him before the date of statement recorded on 29.01.2015 by him before the date of statement recorded on 29.01.2015 was for AY 2012 was for AY 2012-13 dated 27.02.2014 (Acknowledgement of 13 dated 27.02.2014 (Acknowledgement of the said return is submitted at page no. 19 of additional the said return is submitted at page no. 19 of additional the said return is submitted at page no. 19 of additional evidence paper book. evidence paper book.

7.6.1.2. Further, Rajesh Munjapara stated that he had Further, Rajesh Munjapara stated that he had given pre-signed cheques to Kishor Ghadia, however in the signed cheques to Kishor Ghadia, however in the signed cheques to Kishor Ghadia, however in the course of search proceedings which included Mr. Kishor course of search proceedings which included Mr. Kishor course of search proceedings which included Mr. Kishor Ghadia, there were no pre Ghadia, there were no pre-signed cheques found at his signed cheques found at his residence or his place of work. residence or his place of work.

7.6.1.3. Further, Mr. Rajesh Munjapara erroneously at Further, Mr. Rajesh Munjapara erroneously at response no.4 mentioned that he has not given any loan or response no.4 mentioned that he has not given any loan or response no.4 mentioned that he has not given any loan or any payment to the person as mentioned in the question. any payment to the person as mentioned in the question. any payment to the person as mentioned in the question. However, it is submitted that the question included the loan However, it is submitted that the question included the loan However, it is submitted that the question included the loan transaction with M/s. B&M build transaction with M/s. B&M buildcon of Rs. 9,47,000, the con of Rs. 9,47,000, the confirmation of which is submitted at pg. no.20 of additional confirmation of which is submitted at pg. no.20 of additional confirmation of which is submitted at pg. no.20 of additional evidence paper book signed by Mr. Rajesh Munjapara.” evidence paper book signed by Mr. Rajesh Munjapara.” evidence paper book signed by Mr. Rajesh Munjapara.”

Ld. CIT(A) have solely relied on the statement of R Ld. CIT(A) have solely relied on the statement of Rajesh Munjapara ajesh Munjapara

while deciding the issue in dispute but it is settled law that a while deciding the issue in dispute but it is settled law that a while deciding the issue in dispute but it is settled law that a

statement on the stand statement on the stand-alone basis cannot be equated with alone basis cannot be equated with

Hitendra C. Ghadia 16 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

incriminating material so as to enable to make the incriminating material so as to enable to make the incriminating material so as to enable to make the addition. The

learned counsel in support of her contention relied in support of her contention relied in support of her contention relied on the decision

of the Co-ordinate Bench of ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of in the case of DCIT Vs Manoj

Desai in ITA No. 6301/Mum/2018 dated 7/12/2020 Desai in ITA No. 6301/Mum/2018 dated 7/12/2020 Desai in ITA No. 6301/Mum/2018 dated 7/12/2020.

15.1 Further, she referred to additional ground and submitted that , she referred to additional ground and submitted that , she referred to additional ground and submitted that

presence of incriminating material discovered in the the course of presence of incriminating material discovered in the the course of presence of incriminating material discovered in the the course of

search is a sine qua non for search is a sine qua non for addition/disallowance in respect in respect of the

unabated assessment. In support, she relied on the decision of th unabated assessment. In support, she relied on the decision of th unabated assessment. In support, she relied on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Meeta PCIT Vs Meeta Gutgatia

(2018) 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) (2018) 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC).

15.2 Further, she referred to various pages of the additional she referred to various pages of the additional she referred to various pages of the additional

evidence paperbook and submitted that source of loans given to the evidence paperbook and submitted that source of loans given to the evidence paperbook and submitted that source of loans given to the

assessee was duly justified. The assessee was duly justified. The relevant submissions of relevant submissions of learned

counsel are reproduced as under: reproduced as under:

“7.11 It is further submitted that Rajesh Munjapara was a It is further submitted that Rajesh Munjapara was a It is further submitted that Rajesh Munjapara was a labour contractor and for the year under consideration, his labour contractor and for the year under consideration, his labour contractor and for the year under consideration, his HUF had given loan to M/s. B & M Buildcon of Rs. 9,47,000 HUF had given loan to M/s. B & M Buildcon of Rs. 9,47,000 HUF had given loan to M/s. B & M Buildcon of Rs. 9,47,000 (Loan confirm (Loan confirmation attached at pg. no. 20 of additional ation attached at pg. no. 20 of additional evidence paper book is enclosed) for his work done for evidence paper book is enclosed) for his work done for evidence paper book is enclosed) for his work done for Snehlata Choudhary for Rs. 8,00,000 and other receipts. The Snehlata Choudhary for Rs. 8,00,000 and other receipts. The Snehlata Choudhary for Rs. 8,00,000 and other receipts. The

Hitendra C. Ghadia 17 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

same is duly reflected in the bank statement of his HUF same is duly reflected in the bank statement of his HUF same is duly reflected in the bank statement of his HUF attached at pg.no 15 attached at pg.no 15-16 of the additional evidence paper evidence paper book. The confirmation book. The confirmation from Rajesh Munjapara that he had from Rajesh Munjapara that he had done work for Snehlata Choudhary is also attached at pg.no. done work for Snehlata Choudhary is also attached at pg.no. done work for Snehlata Choudhary is also attached at pg.no. 14 of additional evidence paper book. From the repayment of 14 of additional evidence paper book. From the repayment of 14 of additional evidence paper book. From the repayment of the said loan from M/s. B&M Buildcon along with interest the said loan from M/s. B&M Buildcon along with interest the said loan from M/s. B&M Buildcon along with interest aggregating to Rs.9,71,258 duly reflected in the bank ting to Rs.9,71,258 duly reflected in the bank ting to Rs.9,71,258 duly reflected in the bank statement and computation of income (interest component) of statement and computation of income (interest component) of statement and computation of income (interest component) of his HUF, his HUF had advance loan to the Appellant of Rs. his HUF, his HUF had advance loan to the Appellant of Rs. his HUF, his HUF had advance loan to the Appellant of Rs. 9,72,000, thereby proving the creditworthiness of the lender. 9,72,000, thereby proving the creditworthiness of the lender. 9,72,000, thereby proving the creditworthiness of the lender. These were the sources of fun These were the sources of funds from which loan was ds from which loan was advanced to the Appellant. advanced to the Appellant.

7.12 Similarly, Ketan Munajapara was a contractor and for Similarly, Ketan Munajapara was a contractor and for Similarly, Ketan Munajapara was a contractor and for the year under consideration, his HUF had given loan to M/s. the year under consideration, his HUF had given loan to M/s. the year under consideration, his HUF had given loan to M/s. B & M Buildcon of Rs. 9,90,000 (Loan confirmation attached B & M Buildcon of Rs. 9,90,000 (Loan confirmation attached B & M Buildcon of Rs. 9,90,000 (Loan confirmation attached at pg.no 21 of additional ev at pg.no 21 of additional evidence paper book) from his work idence paper book) from his work done for the Appellant as mentioned above in Para 1.7 with done for the Appellant as mentioned above in Para 1.7 with done for the Appellant as mentioned above in Para 1.7 with supporting evidences of Rs. 9,07,200 and other receipts duly supporting evidences of Rs. 9,07,200 and other receipts duly supporting evidences of Rs. 9,07,200 and other receipts duly reflected in the bank statement of his HUF attached at pg.no reflected in the bank statement of his HUF attached at pg.no reflected in the bank statement of his HUF attached at pg.no 11-12 of the additional evidence paper boo 12 of the additional evidence paper book. From the k. From the repayment of the said loan from M/s. B & M Buildcon along repayment of the said loan from M/s. B & M Buildcon along repayment of the said loan from M/s. B & M Buildcon along with interest aggregating to rs. 10,10,831 duly reflected in the with interest aggregating to rs. 10,10,831 duly reflected in the with interest aggregating to rs. 10,10,831 duly reflected in the bank bank bank statement statement statement and and and computation computation computation of of of income income income (interest (interest (interest component) of his HUF, had advance loan to the Appellant of component) of his HUF, had advance loan to the Appellant of component) of his HUF, had advance loan to the Appellant of Rs. 10,10,000, thereby proving the creditworthiness of the 000, thereby proving the creditworthiness of the 000, thereby proving the creditworthiness of the lender. These were the sources of funds from which loan was lender. These were the sources of funds from which loan was lender. These were the sources of funds from which loan was advanced to the Appellant. advanced to the Appellant.

Hitendra C. Ghadia 18 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

7.13 Also, Ketan Munjapara has actually carried out RCC Also, Ketan Munjapara has actually carried out RCC Also, Ketan Munjapara has actually carried out RCC work of row house of the Appellant situated at Plot No. E work of row house of the Appellant situated at Plot No. E work of row house of the Appellant situated at Plot No. E-109, Sector-12, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai and also done interior 12, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai and also done interior 12, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai and also done interior work of flat jointly owned by ilaben and Kishor Ghadia work of flat jointly owned by ilaben and Kishor Ghadia work of flat jointly owned by ilaben and Kishor Ghadia situated at 1702, Millenium Icon, Sector 15, Kharghar, Navi situated at 1702, Millenium Icon, Sector 15, Kharghar, Navi situated at 1702, Millenium Icon, Sector 15, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. To substantiate the same, copies of invoices raised Mumbai. To substantiate the same, copies of invoices raised Mumbai. To substantiate the same, copies of invoices raised by him on the Appellant a by him on the Appellant and Ilaben/ Kishor Ghadia along en/ Kishor Ghadia along with the confirmation of Ketan Munjapra that he has done the with the confirmation of Ketan Munjapra that he has done the with the confirmation of Ketan Munjapra that he has done the work of the Appellant and Ilaben/ Kishor Ghadia are work of the Appellant and Ilaben/ Kishor Ghadia are work of the Appellant and Ilaben/ Kishor Ghadia are submitted at pg.no 7 submitted at pg.no 7-10 of additional evidence paper book. 10 of additional evidence paper book. Further, the payment of Rs. 9,07,200 made by the Appe Further, the payment of Rs. 9,07,200 made by the Appe Further, the payment of Rs. 9,07,200 made by the Appellant for the said RCC work was received by Ketan Munjapara for the said RCC work was received by Ketan Munjapara for the said RCC work was received by Ketan Munjapara which can be seen from the bank statement submitted at which can be seen from the bank statement submitted at which can be seen from the bank statement submitted at pg.no.11-12 of the additional evidence paper book.” 12 of the additional evidence paper book.” 12 of the additional evidence paper book.”

15.3 The learned counsel learned counsel also submitted bank statement of M/s B also submitted bank statement of M/s B

& M Buildcone as part of & M Buildcone as part of additional evidence.

the additional evidence including the affidavit of sh Rajesh the additional evidence including the affidavit of sh Rajesh the additional evidence including the affidavit of sh Rajesh

Munjapara retracting from his statement. He submitted that Munjapara retracting from his statement. He submitted that Munjapara retracting from his statement. He submitted that

retraction after long period shows that now he has b retraction after long period shows that now he has b retraction after long period shows that now he has been pressurised

by the assessee to retract from his earlier statement. He submitted by the assessee to retract from his earlier statement. He submitted by the assessee to retract from his earlier statement. He submitted

that no evidence of any pressure or that no evidence of any pressure or coersion by the by the Income-tax

authorities during recording his statement had been brought on authorities during recording his statement had been brought on authorities during recording his statement had been brought on

Hitendra C. Ghadia 19 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

record and the the assessee is making bald all record and the the assessee is making bald allegations without any egations without any

supporting evidences. supporting evidences.

dispute and perused the relevant material on record. dispute and perused the relevant material on record. dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The additional

ground of the assessee being purely of legal nature admitted for ground of the assessee being purely of legal nature admitted for ground of the assessee being purely of legal nature admitted for

adjudication in view of settled principle of law. in view of settled principle of law.

17.1 As far as the additional additional ground of the appeal of the assessee ground of the appeal of the assessee

that without any incriminating material fo that without any incriminating material found in the course of the und in the course of the

search, in unabated assessment no addition/ , in unabated assessment no addition/disallowance disallowance could

have been made, we find have been made, we find that during the course of the survey that during the course of the survey

carried out along with the search proceeding, carried out along with the search proceeding, Sh Rajesh Rajesh Munjapara

was asked regarding entries of deposits in the bank account of his was asked regarding entries of deposits in the bank account of his was asked regarding entries of deposits in the bank account of his

HUF, wherein he admitted that he was not aware about the HUF, wherein he admitted that he was not aware about the HUF, wherein he admitted that he was not aware about the

deposits and blank cheque cheque of said bank account were handed over of said bank account were handed over

to Sh Kishore Ghadia. In such circumstances it is not the only Kishore Ghadia. In such circumstances it is not the only Kishore Ghadia. In such circumstances it is not the only

statement of Sh Rajesh Munjapara has been relied upon for making Rajesh Munjapara has been relied upon for making Rajesh Munjapara has been relied upon for making

assessment, but the relevant bank account entries of which were assessment, but the relevant bank account entries of which were assessment, but the relevant bank account entries of which were

not explained, was clearl not explained, was clearly in the nature of incriminating material y in the nature of incriminating material

Hitendra C. Ghadia 20 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

found during the course of the search, and therefore the decision of found during the course of the search, and therefore the decision of found during the course of the search, and therefore the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meeta Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meeta Gutgutia (supra) relied Gutgutia (supra) relied

upon by the learned counsel learned counsel of the assessee is not applicable of the assessee is not applicable over

the facts of the instant case. Accordingly the f the instant case. Accordingly the additional additional ground

raised by the learned counsel learned counsel of the assessee is dismissed. of the assessee is dismissed.

cross-examination of the examination of the Sh Rajesh Minjapara is concerned, we find Minjapara is concerned, we find

that now the assessee himself has produced affidavit of Sh w the assessee himself has produced affidavit of Sh w the assessee himself has produced affidavit of Sh Rajesh

Munjapara as additional evidence retracting his earlier statement. s additional evidence retracting his earlier statement. s additional evidence retracting his earlier statement.

Detail of additional evidence filed is reproduced as under: of additional evidence filed is reproduced as under: of additional evidence filed is reproduced as under:

Sr. No. Particulars Pg. No. As regards all the Grounds 1. Copy of Copy of notice by the Assessing Officer to M/s notice by the Assessing Officer to M/s 1-2 Millennium Corporation dated 20.10.2016 Millennium Corporation dated 20.10.2016 2. Acknowledged copy Acknowledged copy Acknowledged copy of reply submitted by M/s of reply submitted of reply submitted by M/s by M/s 3-16 Millennium Corporation dated 06.12.2016 Millennium Corporation dated 06.12.2016 As regards Additional Ground No. 1 As regards Additional Ground No. 1 3. Affidavit of Rajesh Munjapara Affidavit of Rajesh Munjapara retracting the statement retracting the statement 17-18 given on oath u/s 131 (1 original to the members) given on oath u/s 131 (1 original to the members) 4. Copy of acknowledgement of Return of Income of Copy of acknowledgement of Return of Income of Copy of acknowledgement of Return of Income of 19 Rajesh Munjapara for AY 2012 Rajesh Munjapara for AY 2012-13 As regards ground No. 1 As regards ground No. 1 5. Loan Confirmation from B&M Buildcon to Rajesh Loan Confirmation from B&M Buildcon to Rajesh Loan Confirmation from B&M Buildcon to Rajesh 20 Munjapara HUF Munjapara HUF 6. Loan confirmation from B&M Buildcon to Ketan Loan confirmation from B&M Buildcon to Ketan Loan confirmation from B&M Buildcon to Ketan 21 Munjapara HUF Munjapara HUF

Hitendra C. Ghadia 21 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

18.1 In view of the additional evidence file view of the additional evidence filed which which are having

impact on the merit of the addition made and therefore we feel it impact on the merit of the addition made and therefore we feel it impact on the merit of the addition made and therefore we feel it

appropriate to admit additional evidence an appropriate to admit additional evidence and restore the matter d restore the matter

back to the file of the back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding a ssessing Officer for deciding afresh.

Since now the assessee Since now the assessee has claimed that Sh Rajesh Munjapara has

retracted from his earlier statement, and therefore the onus is on from his earlier statement, and therefore the onus is on from his earlier statement, and therefore the onus is on

the assessee to produce him before the Assessing Officer along with the assessee to produce him before the Assessing Officer along with the assessee to produce him before the Assessing Officer along with

all necessary documents all necessary documents in support of his contention that his support of his contention that his

earlier statement was recorded under coercion and pressure. The earlier statement was recorded under coercion and pressure. The earlier statement was recorded under coercion and pressure. The

assessee should also produce the witnesses in presence of whom ssee should also produce the witnesses in presence of whom ssee should also produce the witnesses in presence of whom

his earlier statement during the course of the survey was recorded. his earlier statement during the course of the survey was recorded. his earlier statement during the course of the survey was recorded.

The ground No. 1 of the of the of the appeal of the assessee ssessee is accordingly

allowed for statistical purposes. allowed for statistical purposes.

year 2014-15. The grounds raised in the appeal are reproduced as 15. The grounds raised in the appeal are reproduced as 15. The grounds raised in the appeal are reproduced as

under:

“Ground No. 1 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47 [‘the CIT(A)], 47 [‘the CIT(A)],

Hitendra C. Ghadia 22 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

erred in upholding the additions made by the Deputy upholding the additions made by the Deputy upholding the additions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – – 1(1)(‘the AO’) amounting to Rs. 22,47,000/ amounting to Rs. 22,47,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in respect of the unsecured loans taken alleging 1961 (‘the Act’) in respect of the unsecured loans taken alleging 1961 (‘the Act’) in respect of the unsecured loans taken alleging that the creditworthiness of that the creditworthiness of the lenders was not established. the lenders was not established. 1.2 The CIT(A) erred in The CIT(A) erred in – • Disregarding the factual and legal submissions made by Disregarding the factual and legal submissions made by Disregarding the factual and legal submissions made by the appellant at the time of appeal; the appellant at the time of appeal; • Not making any further investigation with respect to the Not making any further investigation with respect to the Not making any further investigation with respect to the claim; and claim; and • Verifying the source of source of the le Verifying the source of source of the lenders. nders. 1.3 The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs. 22,47,000/ the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs. 22,47,000/ the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs. 22,47,000/-.

Ground No. 2: Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add to , alter any/or amend the The Appellant craves leave to add to , alter any/or amend the The Appellant craves leave to add to , alter any/or amend the foregoing grounds of appeal. foregoing grounds of appeal.”

made addition of Rs. Rs.28,28,000/- treating the unsecured loans treating the unsecured loans

received from various parties as unexplained cash credit in terms of received from various parties as unexplained cash credit in terms of received from various parties as unexplained cash credit in terms of

section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer . The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer in

respect of each unsecured loan party respect of each unsecured loan party is reproduced as under: is reproduced as under:

“4.2.1 Bharat Dholariaya (HUF) : Rs. 2,00,000/ Bharat Dholariaya (HUF) : Rs. 2,00,000/ Bharat Dholariaya (HUF) : Rs. 2,00,000/-

The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the lender which reveal that there is a cash deposit of Rs. lender which reveal that there is a cash deposit of Rs. lender which reveal that there is a cash deposit of Rs.

Hitendra C. Ghadia 23 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

100000/ 100000/- each each on on 16.01.2014 16.01.2014 & & 18.01.2014 respectively. Out of which a loan of Rs. 200000/ respectively. Out of which a loan of Rs. 200000/ respectively. Out of which a loan of Rs. 200000/- is given to the assessee on 20.01.2014. The source of given to the assessee on 20.01.2014. The source of given to the assessee on 20.01.2014. The source of these cash deposits is not explained. these cash deposits is not explained.

4.2.2 Divyesh Vagasiya : Rs. 5,78,000/ Divyesh Vagasiya : Rs. 5,78,000/-

The assessee has furnished a copy of bank statement The assessee has furnished a copy of bank statement The assessee has furnished a copy of bank statement of this of this lender which reveals a cash deposits of Rs. lender which reveals a cash deposits of Rs. 49,000/ 49,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- & 150000 on 06.09.2013, & 150000 on 06.09.2013, 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 respectively. The source of 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 respectively. The source of 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 respectively. The source of cash deposits in the lenders account is claimed to be cash deposits in the lenders account is claimed to be cash deposits in the lenders account is claimed to be out of sundry loans and cash receipts. However, the out of sundry loans and cash receipts. However, the out of sundry loans and cash receipts. However, the source of the same is not known and not duly e of the same is not known and not duly e of the same is not known and not duly explained. explained.

4.2.3 Kantibhai Dholariya HUF : Rs. 2,50,000/ Kantibhai Dholariya HUF : Rs. 2,50,000/ Kantibhai Dholariya HUF : Rs. 2,50,000/-

The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the lender which reveals that there is cash deposit of Rs. lender which reveals that there is cash deposit of Rs. lender which reveals that there is cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/ 1,00,000/- each each on on 16.01.2014, 16.01.2014, 17.01.2014 17.01.2014 & & 50,000/ 0/- on 17.01.2014 respectively, out of which a on 17.01.2014 respectively, out of which a loan of Rs. 250000/ loan of Rs. 250000/- is given to the assessee on is given to the assessee on 20.01.2014. The source of these cash deposits 20.01.2014. The source of these cash deposits 20.01.2014. The source of these cash deposits -------------------------- -------------------------- of the lender is not known. of the lender is not known.

4.2.4 Rajnikant R Patodiya : RS Rajnikant R Patodiya : RS 8,50,000/-

The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the lender which reveals that there is a cash deposit of Rs. lender which reveals that there is a cash deposit of Rs. lender which reveals that there is a cash deposit of Rs. 49000/ 49000/- on 06.09.2013, Rs. 3,00,000/ on 06.09.2013, Rs. 3,00,000/- each on 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 respectively, out of which a 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 respectively, out of which a 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 respectively, out of which a loan of Rs. 250000/ loan of Rs. 250000/- is given to the assessee on e assessee on

Hitendra C. Ghadia 24 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

08.09.2013, Rs, 300000/ 08.09.2013, Rs, 300000/- each on 20.12.2013 & each on 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 respectively. The source of these cash 21.12.2013 respectively. The source of these cash 21.12.2013 respectively. The source of these cash deposits is claimed to be out of sundry loans in the deposits is claimed to be out of sundry loans in the deposits is claimed to be out of sundry loans in the hands of the lender, but the same is not duly hands of the lender, but the same is not duly hands of the lender, but the same is not duly explained. explained.

4.2.5 Ramila Ravaji Patodiya : Rs. Ramila Ravaji Patodiya : Rs. 5,50,000/-

The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the The assessee has filed copy of bank statement of the lender which reveals that there is a cash deposits of lender which reveals that there is a cash deposits of lender which reveals that there is a cash deposits of Rs. 49000/ Rs. 49000/- on 06.09.2013 & Rs. 3,00,000/ on 06.09.2013 & Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.12.2013, out of which a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/ 20.12.2013, out of which a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/ 20.12.2013, out of which a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- is given to the assessee on 08.09.2013, Rs given to the assessee on 08.09.2013, Rs given to the assessee on 08.09.2013, Rs. 300000/- each on 20.12.2013. The source of these can deposits each on 20.12.2013. The source of these can deposits each on 20.12.2013. The source of these can deposits is claimed to be out of sundry loans in the hands of the is claimed to be out of sundry loans in the hands of the is claimed to be out of sundry loans in the hands of the lender, but the same is not duly explained. lender, but the same is not duly explained.

4.2.6 Vinubhai Gajera (HUF) : Rs.4,00,000/ Vinubhai Gajera (HUF) : Rs.4,00,000/-

On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowe On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief d part relief and sustained addition of the 22, 47,000/ and sustained addition of the 22, 47,000/- -. Aggrieved with the addition sustained, the assessee is in appeal with the addition sustained, the assessee is in appeal with the addition sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal by w before the tribunal by way of grounds reproduced ay of grounds reproduced above. above.”

book containing pages pages 1 to 67.

dispute and perused the material on record including paperbook dispute and perused the material on record including paperbook dispute and perused the material on record including paperbook

Hitendra C. Ghadia 25 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

filed by the assessee. filed by the assessee. The additional in respect of each party is in respect of each party is

discussed below:

22.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2 lakh, w 2 lakh, which was

shown by the assessee a shown by the assessee as unsecured loan from Mr Bharat Dhalaria. s unsecured loan from Mr Bharat Dhalaria.

The The assessee assessee filed filed ledger confirmation confirmation from from the the party, party

acknowledgement of return of income and computation of i acknowledgement of return of income and computation of i acknowledgement of return of income and computation of income of

said party, which are available on page 19 to 21 paperbook. The said party, which are available on page 19 to 21 paperbook. The said party, which are available on page 19 to 21 paperbook. The

learned counsel also referred to bank state also referred to bank statement and copy of 7/12 ment and copy of 7/12

extract (i.e. land revenue records showing crop on agriculture land), .e. land revenue records showing crop on agriculture land), .e. land revenue records showing crop on agriculture land),

which are available on page 37 to 39 of the pape which are available on page 37 to 39 of the paperbook. The rbook. The learned

counsel also submitted that addition in the case of Mrs also submitted that addition in the case of Mrs also submitted that addition in the case of Mrs Ushaben

Ghadia amounting to Ghadia amounting to Rs.14 lakh for assessment year 2014 14 lakh for assessment year 2014-15, with

respect to the unsecured loan given by Bharat Dhalaria respect to the unsecured loan given by Bharat Dhalaria respect to the unsecured loan given by Bharat Dhalaria (HUF) has

been deleted by the Tribunal Tribunal in order dated 23/03/2022. order dated 23/03/2022.

22.2 The learned DR on the other hand submitted that before the DR on the other hand submitted that before the DR on the other hand submitted that before the

Ld. CIT(A) no evidence of sale of agricultural produce and surplus Ld. CIT(A) no evidence of sale of agricultural produce and surplus Ld. CIT(A) no evidence of sale of agricultural produce and surplus

income in the hands of Sh Bharat Dhalaria was explained. He income in the hands of Sh Bharat Dhalaria was explained. He income in the hands of Sh Bharat Dhalaria was explained. He

Hitendra C. Ghadia 26 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

further submitted that in the case of t further submitted that in the case of the assessee, immediately he assessee, immediately

before issuing loan of before issuing loan of Rs.2 lakh to the assessee on 21/01/2014, 2 lakh to the assessee on 21/01/2014,

there is a cash deposit of there is a cash deposit of Rs. 1 lakh on 16/01/2014 and another 1 lakh on 16/01/2014 and another

cash deposit of Rs. 1 lakh on 18/01/2014 and source of which has 1 lakh on 18/01/2014 and source of which has 1 lakh on 18/01/2014 and source of which has

not been explained from the income tax not been explained from the income tax returns or financial returns or financial

statements of said party filed by the assessee, and therefore the Ld. statements of said party filed by the assessee, and therefore the Ld. statements of said party filed by the assessee, and therefore the Ld.

CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition of rupee two lakhs. justified in upholding the addition of rupee two lakhs. justified in upholding the addition of rupee two lakhs.

22.3 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition observing as We find that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition observing as We find that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition observing as

under:

“14.0 I have considered “14.0 I have considered the facts of the case, submission of the facts of the case, submission of the Appellant, the observations of the AO contained in the Appellant, the observations of the AO contained in the Appellant, the observations of the AO contained in the assessment order and the other materials on the assessment order and the other materials on the assessment order and the other materials on record on this issue. Ground No. 4 deals with the record on this issue. Ground No. 4 deals with the record on this issue. Ground No. 4 deals with the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs made by the AO as unexplained addition of Rs. 2 lakhs made by the AO as unexplained addition of Rs. 2 lakhs made by the AO as unexplained loan receiv loan received from Shri Bharat Dholariya. While ed from Shri Bharat Dholariya. While completing the assessment the AO observed that cash completing the assessment the AO observed that cash completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. 1 lakh each was deposited on 16.1.2014 and of Rs. 1 lakh each was deposited on 16.1.2014 and of Rs. 1 lakh each was deposited on 16.1.2014 and therefore the AO treated this amount as unexplained. therefore the AO treated this amount as unexplained. therefore the AO treated this amount as unexplained. In the appellate proceedings the assessee however In the appellate proceedings the assessee however In the appellate proceedings the assessee however argued that Sh argued that Shri Bharat Dholariya was earning was earning agricultural income and own some land in respect of agricultural income and own some land in respect of agricultural income and own some land in respect of 7/12th 7/12th extract regarding loan ownership was also filed. extract regarding loan ownership was also filed. The assessee accordingly argued that this loan should The assessee accordingly argued that this loan should The assessee accordingly argued that this loan should be treated as explained. be treated as explained.

Hitendra C. Ghadia 27 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

14.1 I have considered the arguments I have considered the arguments of the assessee and do of the assessee and do not agree with the same. Firstly Shri Bharat Dholariya not agree with the same. Firstly Shri Bharat Dholariya not agree with the same. Firstly Shri Bharat Dholariya is not being assessed to tax and therefore sources of is not being assessed to tax and therefore sources of is not being assessed to tax and therefore sources of income are never disclosed to the Department. Further income are never disclosed to the Department. Further income are never disclosed to the Department. Further it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did it is not clear as to how much agricultural income did Shri Bharat Dh Shri Bharat Dholariya earned during the relevant olariya earned during the relevant period and whether he could have had surplus cash of period and whether he could have had surplus cash of period and whether he could have had surplus cash of Rs. 2 lakhs in his hands, as on the date of deposits, Rs. 2 lakhs in his hands, as on the date of deposits, Rs. 2 lakhs in his hands, as on the date of deposits, after meeting his own expenses, since neither the after meeting his own expenses, since neither the after meeting his own expenses, since neither the sources of income has been separately explained nor sources of income has been separately explained nor sources of income has been separately explained nor the availabi the availability of cash in the hands of the cash credit lity of cash in the hands of the cash credit is established nor the loan creditor is being assessed is established nor the loan creditor is being assessed is established nor the loan creditor is being assessed to tax therefore, I am not in a position to give any relief to tax therefore, I am not in a position to give any relief to tax therefore, I am not in a position to give any relief to the assessee in this regard and the addition made to the assessee in this regard and the addition made to the assessee in this regard and the addition made by the AO is upheld. by the AO is upheld.”

22.4 In view of cash deposits appearing in the bank account of view of cash deposits appearing in the bank account of view of cash deposits appearing in the bank account of

unsecured loan party immediately before issuing loan to the unsecured loan party immediately before issuing loan to the unsecured loan party immediately before issuing loan to the

assessee, the onus was on the assessee to explain whether such assessee, the onus was on the assessee to explain whether such assessee, the onus was on the assessee to explain whether such

cash deposits in the hands of said party was a deposits in the hands of said party was a deposits in the hands of said party was a part of taxable

receipt or other explained receipt, but the assessee failed r explained receipt, but the assessee failed r explained receipt, but the assessee failed to justify

the source of such d the source of such deposits in the hands of said unsecured loan eposits in the hands of said unsecured loan

party immediately before issuing loan to the assessee. In view of party immediately before issuing loan to the assessee. In view of party immediately before issuing loan to the assessee. In view of

failure to explain the source of cash deposits, availability of failure to explain the source of cash deposits, availability of failure to explain the source of cash deposits, availability of

agricultural income in the hands of said party also cannot justify ltural income in the hands of said party also cannot justify ltural income in the hands of said party also cannot justify

Hitendra C. Ghadia 28 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

genuineness of the transaction genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness. As far as, and creditworthiness. As far as,

reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Tribunal in

ITA No. 618/Mum/2021 is concerned No. 618/Mum/2021 is concerned, we find that there is no we find that there is no

reference of deletion of any such loan rence of deletion of any such loan given by Bharat Dhalria by Bharat Dhalria (HUF)

to Ushaben Ghadia, Ghadia, in said order and therefore reliance placed on and therefore reliance placed on

the said decision is misplaced. For ready reference, the ground of the said decision is misplaced. For ready reference, the ground of the said decision is misplaced. For ready reference, the ground of

appeal reproduced by the appeal reproduced by the Tribunal (supra) are extracted as (supra) are extracted as under:

“Grounds of appeal read as under: “Grounds of appeal read as under:-

Ground No. 1

1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47 Mumbai [‘the CIT(A)’], 47 Mumbai [‘the CIT(A)’], erred erred erred in in in upholding upholding upholding the the the additions additions additions made made made by by by the the the Deputy Deputy Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1)(‘the AO’) amounting to Rs. 1 amounting to Rs. 1,99,725/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in respect of the gifts received from Haribhat Vekariya (‘the Act’) in respect of the gifts received from Haribhat Vekariya (‘the Act’) in respect of the gifts received from Haribhat Vekariya alleging that the creditworthiness of the lender was not alleging that the creditworthiness of the lender was not alleging that the creditworthiness of the lender was not established.

1.2 The CIT (A) erred in _ 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in _ • Disregarding the factual and legal submis Disregarding the factual and legal submissions made by the sions made by the appellant at the time of appeal; appellant at the time of appeal; • Not making any further investigation with respect to the Not making any further investigation with respect to the Not making any further investigation with respect to the claim; and claim; and • Verifying the source of source of the lender. Verifying the source of source of the lender.

Hitendra C. Ghadia 29 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

1.3 The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete the 1.3 The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete the 1.3 The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to delete the aforesaid addi aforesaid additions amounting to Rs. 1,99,725/-.

Ground No. 2:

2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s. 80C on account of erred in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s. 80C on account of erred in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s. 80C on account of tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539/ tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539/-

2.2 The appellant pray The appellant prays that such disallowance of deduction made s that such disallowance of deduction made be allowed.”

22.5 In view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold the addition made by the

Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of

unsecured loan of Rs. Rs. 2 lakh from Sh Bharat Dhalaria. Bharat Dhalaria.

22.6 The Assessing Officer The Assessing Officer added unsecured loan of unsecured loan of Rs.5,78,000/-

received from the party. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering submission received from the party. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering submission received from the party. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering submission

of the assessee restricted the addition to the extent of cash of the assessee restricted the addition to the extent of cash of the assessee restricted the addition to the extent of cash

deposited in the bank ac deposited in the bank account of said party. The relevant finding of count of said party. The relevant finding of

the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“18.0 I have considered the facts of the case, submissions of the I have considered the facts of the case, submissions of the I have considered the facts of the case, submissions of the Appellant, the observations of the AO contained in the Appellant, the observations of the AO contained in the Appellant, the observations of the AO contained in the assessment order and the other materials on record on this assessment order and the other materials on record on this assessment order and the other materials on record on this issue. In ground no. 5 the assessee has disputed the addition issue. In ground no. 5 the assessee has disputed the addition issue. In ground no. 5 the assessee has disputed the addition of Rs. 5,78,000/ of Rs. 5,78,000/- as unexplained loan u/s. 68. While unexplained loan u/s. 68. While

Hitendra C. Ghadia 30 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. completing the assessment the AO observed that cash of Rs. 49,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/ , Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- was deposited in was deposited in the bank accounts of the loan creditor as on 06.09.2013, the bank accounts of the loan creditor as on 06.09.2013, the bank accounts of the loan creditor as on 06.09.2013, 20.12.2013 and 21.12.2013, out of which loan o 20.12.2013 and 21.12.2013, out of which loan o 20.12.2013 and 21.12.2013, out of which loan of Rs. 5,78,000/- has been give. The AO therefore treated the loan has been give. The AO therefore treated the loan as unexplained cash credits. as unexplained cash credits.

18.1 During the appellate proceedings the assessee argued that During the appellate proceedings the assessee argued that During the appellate proceedings the assessee argued that Shri Divyesh Vagasiya has given loan to several persons in Shri Divyesh Vagasiya has given loan to several persons in Shri Divyesh Vagasiya has given loan to several persons in the past where from this loan the past where from this loan was received back in cash was was received back in cash was deposited in the bank account and out of the sum loan cheque deposited in the bank account and out of the sum loan cheque deposited in the bank account and out of the sum loan cheque has been issued to the present assessee. However, no has been issued to the present assessee. However, no has been issued to the present assessee. However, no evidence in this regard could be furnished by the assessee. evidence in this regard could be furnished by the assessee. evidence in this regard could be furnished by the assessee. Even otherwise giving cash loan and received back o Even otherwise giving cash loan and received back o Even otherwise giving cash loan and received back of the same is in violation of Section 269Ss and 269T of Income Tax same is in violation of Section 269Ss and 269T of Income Tax same is in violation of Section 269Ss and 269T of Income Tax Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is Act. Besides the assessee also argued that this amount is repaid in the same year however the same is not material as repaid in the same year however the same is not material as repaid in the same year however the same is not material as far as addition made by the AO u/s. 68 is Diveysh Vagaisya far as addition made by the AO u/s. 68 is Diveysh Vagaisya far as addition made by the AO u/s. 68 is Diveysh Vagaisya is Rs. 5,78, is Rs. 5,78,000/- while cash deposited in the bank account is while cash deposited in the bank account is only Rs. 3,99,000/ only Rs. 3,99,000/-. Therefore out of addition of Rs. . Therefore out of addition of Rs. 5,78,000/-, a sum of Rs. , a sum of Rs. 3,99,000/- is upheld and remaining is upheld and remaining amount of Rs. 1,79,000/ amount of Rs. 1,79,000/- is directed to be deleted. is directed to be deleted.”

22.7 The learned counsel learned counsel of the assessee referred to ledger of the assessee referred to ledger

confirmation, confirmation, confirmation, acknowledgement acknowledgement acknowledgement of of of return return return of of of income income income and and and

computation of the income available on paperbook page 22 to 24. computation of the income available on paperbook page 22 to 24. computation of the income available on paperbook page 22 to 24.

She also referred to bank statement of said party and extract of also referred to bank statement of said party and extract of also referred to bank statement of said party and extract of

7/12 statement, available on page 40 7/12 statement, available on page 40 and 41 of the paperbook. The and 41 of the paperbook. The

Hitendra C. Ghadia 31 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

learned counsel submitted that no addition has been made in the submitted that no addition has been made in the submitted that no addition has been made in the

case of B &M Builcone Builcone for assessment year 2014-15 with respect to 15 with respect to

the unsecured loan given by Mr the unsecured loan given by Mr. Divesh Vaghasia.

22.8 The learned DR on the other hand relied on DR on the other hand relied on the order of the the order of the

lower authorities and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has fairly lower authorities and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has fairly lower authorities and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has fairly

restricted the addition to the extent of cash deposit in the bank addition to the extent of cash deposit in the bank addition to the extent of cash deposit in the bank

account of said party. account of said party.

22.9 On persusal of bank statement of said party available on page persusal of bank statement of said party available on page persusal of bank statement of said party available on page

40 of the paperboo 40 of the paperbook, we find that there are cash deposits of k, we find that there are cash deposits of

Rs.49,000; Rs.2,00,000/ 00,000/-; and Rs.1,50,000/- in the bank accounts in the bank accounts

of said party on 06/09/2013; 28/12/2013 and 21/12/2013, out of of said party on 06/09/2013; 28/12/2013 and 21/12/2013, out of of said party on 06/09/2013; 28/12/2013 and 21/12/2013, out of

which loan of Rs.5,78,000 78,000/- has been given. The assessee has failed has been given. The assessee has failed

to correlate these fixed deposits with any of the receipt or loans in e fixed deposits with any of the receipt or loans in e fixed deposits with any of the receipt or loans in

the financial statement of said party and therefore failed to justify the financial statement of said party and therefore failed to justify the financial statement of said party and therefore failed to justify

creditworthiness/genuineness genuineness genuineness of of of the the the transaction. transaction. transaction. In In In the the the

circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld.

CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. we uphold the same.

Hitendra C. Ghadia 32 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

22.10 Similar observations have been made by the Ld. CIT(A) in Similar observations have been made by the Ld. CIT(A) in Similar observations have been made by the Ld. CIT(A) in

respect of unsecured loans from other parties namely respect of unsecured loans from other parties namely respect of unsecured loans from other parties namely Sh Kantibhai

Dholaraia (Rs.2,50,000 2,50,000/-) ; Sh Rajnikant R Patodiya ( ) ; Sh Rajnikant R Patodiya (Rs.6,49,000/-)

Smt Ramila R Patodiya (Rs. Ramila R Patodiya (Rs.3,49,000/-) shVBinubhaiGajera (Rs. ) shVBinubhaiGajera (Rs.

4,00,000/-). The Ld. CIT(A) sustain Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of the addition to the extent of

cash deposits in the bank account of relevant unsecured loan party. cash deposits in the bank account of relevant unsecured loan party. cash deposits in the bank account of relevant unsecured loan party.

In view of our finding in respect of f In view of our finding in respect of first two unsecured loan irst two unsecured loan parties,

we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the other we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the other we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the other

unsecured loan party being id unsecured loan party being identical facts and circumstances entical facts and circumstances.

Before us the learned counsel learned counsel of the assessee also argued that in of the assessee also argued that in

case of some parties loan amount was repaid in the same case of some parties loan amount was repaid in the same case of some parties loan amount was repaid in the same year

therefore no addition should have been made. This argument of the therefore no addition should have been made. This argument of the therefore no addition should have been made. This argument of the

assessee has already been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) and we assessee has already been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) and we assessee has already been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) and we

concure with the said finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as onus is on the concure with the said finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as onus is on the concure with the said finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as onus is on the

assessee to explain the nature and source of the credit ap assessee to explain the nature and source of the credit ap assessee to explain the nature and source of the credit appearing in

his books of accounts and return of the said amount is not relevant his books of accounts and return of the said amount is not relevant his books of accounts and return of the said amount is not relevant

as far as the provision of section 68 of the as far as the provision of section 68 of the Act is concerned. is concerned.

22.11 In view of our discussion, the sole ground of appeal of the In view of our discussion, the sole ground of appeal of the In view of our discussion, the sole ground of appeal of the

assessee is dismissed. assessee is dismissed.

Hitendra C. Ghadia 33 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021 ITA Nos. 7218 & 7219/M/2019 & 616/M/2021

23 In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

2011-12 and 2013-14 are allowed party for statistical purposes, 14 are allowed party for statistical purposes, 14 are allowed party for statistical purposes,

whereas the appeal of the assessee for assessment whereas the appeal of the assessee for assessment whereas the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 is

dismissed.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules,

1963 on 30/11/2022. /11/2022.

Sd/- Sd/- - (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/11/2022 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Sr. Private Secretary) (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai