INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THANE., THANE vs. AKSHAYA ASHOK GHOLE, THANE

PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) –

National Faceless Appe assessment year 2021-2
2. In the above cited grounds :
“a. On the facts and the appeal of the a assessment proceed evidences in respect issue of cash deposit b. On the facts and the appeal of the as made by the assess those which were ma c. On the facts and the appeal of the as evidences, which w proceedings and wer the Assessing Office of the L.T. Rules 196
d. The appellant c ground/grounds, wh
3. The assessee has f basically supporting the the Ld. CIT(A).
4. As the issues are objection of assessee ar delay of less than 1 mo eal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘t
22. d appeal, the Revenue has t in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) e assessee without considering the fact dings, the assessee failed to furnis of investment in immovable properties a ts made during the year.
in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) e ssessee without considering the fact that see during the appellate proceedings we ade by the assessee during the assessme in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) e ssessee on the basis of the submissions were made for the first time during re in the nature of additional evidences, w r to examine the additional evidences as 62. craves leave to add, amend or alte hich may be necessary.”
filed a cross objection and these e CIT(A) order and her written e common, the appeal of dep re clubbed and a common orde onth by both parties and after h
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
2
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
the Ld. CIT(A)’] for taken the following erred in allowing that during the sh documentary as well as on the erred in allowing t the contentions re different from ent proceedings.
erred in allowing s and supporting g the appellate without allowing s per Rule 46A(3) er or alter any e cross objections is submissions before partment and cross er is passed there is hearing the reasons for delay the same is h merits. The facts of the c a)
The Ld. AO is only one noti and on 15/1
relating to hou law, copy of pa b)
The first add appellant into the extent of R
As the appella these deposits r.w.s. 115BBE c)
The second a unexplained i the total inve the Ld. AO he investment to The major am are bank loan
60,00,000/- r
Ld. AO added filed confirmat hereby condoned and the case case are as follows :
ssued 6 hearing notices, and t ce, as observed from page 2 o
2/2022, the assessee has su using loan sanction letter, copy assbook of her husband etc.
dition made is with respect to o the bank account of GP Parek
Rs. 59,29,000/- including cash ant didn’t give proper explanat s, addition of Rs. 59,29,000/-
E of IT Act, as unexplained mon addition made by Ld. AO is w nvestment u/s. 69 of IT Act r.w stment of Rs. 2.53 Cr. while p eld that the appellant couldn’t ex the extent of Rs. 1,72,00,000/
mounts where Ld. AO was not n of SBI to the extent of Rs. 1,1
received from sale of an immov d Rs. 1,10,00,000/- because th tion of loan letter from SBI.
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
3
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
e is adjudicated on there is response to of assessment order bmitted documents of will of mother-in- o deposits made by kh Sahakari Bank to of Rs. 37,93,000/-.
tion with respect to was made u/s. 69
ney.
with respect to the w.s. 115BBE. Out of purchasing the flat, xplain the source of /- and hence added.
satisfied and added
10,00,000/- and Rs.
vable property. The e appellant has not d)
The Ld. DR h addressed the and rule 46A( remand repor gave relief to aside and mat examination.
e)
Per contra, Ld that they have All this inform electronically the document held that the similar circum her husband
Loans taken filed. The AO completed the having satisfie property in q husband. The bank loan a necessary evid pleaded that s has argued that the Ld. CIT(A e issues and no opportunity w
(3) was violated. The CIT(A) ha rt on the fresh evidence filed by her. Hence, the order of Ld. C tter may be sent back to the file d. AR of appellant, has argued e not filed any documents afres mation is already before Ld. AO filed. The AO has not taken in ts filed by them during assessme appellant has filed the required mstances, all documents were fil also. The copy of sanction lette from persons and confirmatio
O of her husband took all the e scrutiny assessment u/s. 143( ed about the loans taken from S question was purchased in the e AO of her husband also ask and other sources of cash d dences were produced. The Ld.
since the issues are same, i.e.,
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
4
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
A) has not properly was given to the AO as not called for the y the appellant and CIT(A) should be set e of Ld. AO for fresh in detail and stated sh before Ld. CIT(A).
O as the same was nto consideration all ent proceedings and d documents. In the led before the AO of er of loan from SBI, on letters were also ese documents and (3) of the IT Act after
SBI and others. The e name of wife and ked questions about deposits for which AR of appellant has , cash deposits and the sources fo joint names, t sources for a argued that th will of appella is totally unca of 14 pages m after perusing mind, has ad appellant whi taken into con before AO an contended by powers of CIT perusal of th consideration accepted all t were made. It not taken in electronically punished goin same. The Ld appellant and their life as th or acquiring the same house p the AO of the appellant can’t d acquiring property. The Ld. AR he AO has disbelieved even ba ant’s mother-in-law and added alled for. The Ld. CIT(A) has pas mentioning the arguments of Ld g the material placed before him djudicated the matter fairly and ich should not be disturbed. T nsideration the documents whic nd hence there is no violation y the Department. It was als
T(A) are co-terminus with that he documents filed before him the fact the A.O of appella the contentions of her husban was argued that, it is the fault nto consideration the docume and for his fault, the appell ng to the Assessing Officer and d. AR of appellant has also ple her husband are going through heir only young son aged 23 is Akshaya Ashok Ghole
5
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
property which is in oubt the veracity of R of appellant has ank loan of SBI and the amounts which ssed a detailed order d. AO and appellant, m, having applied his d gave relief to the The Ld. CIT(A) has ch were already filed n of Rule 46A(3) as so argued that the t of A.O, and after m, after taking into ant’s husband has d and no additions of Ld. A.O, who has ents filed by them lant should not be d again proving the eaded that both the h very tough time in s undergoing kidney transplant an members are suffering from last 4 years fo of appellant h all sources of further plead government e such circums explain the sa that the order
Department m
5. Heard both sides in as clarification proceedin of assessee for the follow a)
As mentioned made and the and other on addition relate in the assessm
1,72,00,000/- loan and sa documents re loan letter we nd her husband is the donor o running around hospitals as t m kidney problem and taking di or which they incurred huge ex has also filed a paper book givi f cash deposits and purchase ded that herself and her h employees and not doing any stances, going back to the De ame sources is really difficult an r of Ld. CIT(A) may be sustaine may be dismissed.
n detail at the time of hearing ngs before ITAT and matter is ad wing reasons :
in the beginning of this order, e first one relates to cash credit ne relates to purchase of pr es to the sources for acquiring ment order where the AO made
- disbelieving the version of ap ale of old immovable prope lating to bank loan from SBI in re filed before AO and before Ld
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
6
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
of kidney. All family heir son aged 23 is ialysis treatment for xpenses. The Ld. AR ing reconciliation of of property. It was husband are only other business. In epartment again to nd it was submitted d and the appeal of proceedings as well djudicated in favour two additions were s deposited in bank roperty. The major g the flat mentioned e an addition of Rs.
ppellant about bank erty. The relevant ncluding sanction of d. CIT(A) again. The Ld. AR of app
CIT(A) gave ca the bank loan the remaining and filed a c property by a taken as sour
60,00,000/- b old furniture
Since all the and all source the addition m
AO of appellan assessment u
1,72,00,000/- addition.
b)
The second a deposits and appellant. An the appellant to the bank a these amount and 69A. The regard to this pellant again filed the same be ategorical finding that there is n n from SBI to the extent of Rs.
g amount of Rs. 0.62 crore, the a copy of sale Deed which evid assessee. This was also perused rce for investment in the newl being sale of flat and Rs. 2,00,00
were received by the appellant documents were filed before A es were explained, nothing sur made by AO, especially in the ci nt’s husband has accepted the s u/s. 143(3) with regard to -. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has c addition made by Ld. AO is w amount transferred to the amount of Rs. 37,95,000/- cas and an amount of Rs. 21,36,00
account of appellant. The Ld. A ts as “unexplained” and addition arguments of Ld. DR and Ld. A s source are on similar lines as Akshaya Ashok Ghole
7
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
efore ITAT. The Ld.
nothing to disbelieve
1,10,00,000/-. For appellant has stated denced the sale of d by Ld. CIT(A) and ly acquired flat, Rs.
00/- towards sale of t and her husband.
AO, CIT(A) and ITAT rvives for sustaining ircumstances where same in his scrutiny the addition Rs.
orrectly deleted the with respect to cash bank account of sh was deposited by 00/- was transferred
AO has treated both n was made u/s. 69
AR of appellant with s that of investment made in prope were furnishe the AO of app and no additio order and Rul c)
The AR of ap cash deposits chart showing filed before
37,95,000/-, t of Rs. 29,85,0
passed away, and a copy of submitted in savings and r from 5 person letters were borrowed from AR of appella by the Ld. CIT all these docu was argued.

erty. The Ld. AR of appellant sta ed before AO and CIT(A), in sim ellant’s husband has accepted a on was made. The Ld. DR relied le 46A(3) of IT rules.
ppellant has submitted a chart and amounts transferred to he g sources which was submitted
ITAT also. Out of the cash the Ld. AR of appellant has sta
000/- was given to her by her bequeathing this amount as pa f this “Will Deed” filed before lo
ITAT also. Rs. 2,10,000/- wa remaining amount of Rs. 7,08,0
ns, whole names, addresses, PA submitted to lower authoritie m each person is less than Rs.
nt has submitted that the deta
T(A) on page 4 and 5 of his ord uments, the CIT(A) was satisfied
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
8
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
ates that the details milar circumstances, all their contentions d on the assessment t showing source of r account. A copy of d to Ld. CIT(A) was h deposits of Rs.
ated that an amount mother–in-law who art of her “Will Deed”
wer authorities was as stated to be her
000/- was borrowed
AN and confirmation s and the amount
2,00,000/-. The Ld.
ails were mentioned der. After examining d and gave relief, it d)
With regard to account, it wa was transferre explained his scrutiny asses the assessmen of Income Ta transferred to the rental dep that all source of her husban it was submi
Revenue to se e)
Heard both s entries. In vi confirmed.
i.
The addit account w who has scrutiny a representi correctly d o the credit entries of Rs. 21,36
as stated that the major amount ed from her husband’s bank a sources to his Assessing Office ssment and the Assessing Office nt was completed without any a ax Act. Remaining amount of R her bank account by their lan posit. Thus, the Ld. AR of appe es were explained in detail to th nd, CIT(A) in her case with requ itted that there is no force in nd the case back to AO for fresh sides on the issue of cash d iew of the following, the orde tion relating to credit entries in was already explained to the A accepted his submissions wh assessment of her husband. H ing amounts received from deleted by Ld. CIT(A).
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
9
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
6,000/- in her bank t of Rs. 19,00,000/- and he has already er at the time of his er was satisfied and addition u/s. 143(3)
Rs. 2,00,000/- was ndlord who refunded llant has submitted he Assessing Officer uisite details. Hence, n the argument of h adjudication.
deposits and credit er of Ld. CIT(A) is nto appellant’s bank
AO of her husband hile completing the Hence, credit entries her husband was ii.
The additio because ne through “W was furnish deleted the a iii.
The other h along with phone numb is accepted the same employees i medical trea iv.
All these ev mode, they and gave authorities a kidney tran to kidney t dialysis trea
6. In view of above fac appeal of Revenue to sen department is dismissed as a same is basically su on relating to the cash depos ecessary evidences relating to Will Deed” of her mother-in-law hed to lower authorities and Ld.
addition after perusing and gett hand loans of Rs. 7,08,000/- w confirmation letters, PAN of bers. The small amounts receiv in view of the fact that they co as both wife and husband n the dire circumstances of gett atment.
vidences were filed before AO, were filed before CIT(A) who el relief. Several papers were and in ITAT showing their son is splantation and father being do transplant, huge money was s atment prior to kidney transplan cts, evidences filed and peculiar nd the file back to AO is rejecte d. The cross objection filed by a upporting the order of CIT(A).
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
10
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
sits is also deleted o amount received w who passed away
CIT(A) has correctly ting satisfied.
were also explained creditors and their ved from 5 creditors ould easily mobilize d are Government ting their only son’s through electronic laborately discussed filed before lower s still in hospital for onor of kidney, prior spent for her son’s nt.
r circumstances, the ed and the appeal of appellant is allowed

Order pronounced (NARENDER KUMAR CH
JUDICIAL MEM
Mumbai;
Dated: 10/02/2025
Poonam Mirashi,
Stenographer

Copy of the Order forwarded
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

d in the open Court on 10/02 HOUDHARY)
(OMKARESHW
MBER
ACCOUNTA to :

BY O

(Assistant

ITAT, M
Akshaya Ashok Ghole
11
CO No. 98/MUM/2024 &
/2025. /-
WAR CHIDARA)
ANT MEMBER
ORDER,