Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeal by the assessee are directed against two These two appeal by the assessee are directed against two These two appeal by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 30.09.2019 and 23.07.2019 passed by the Ld. separate orders dated 30.09.2019 and 23.07.2019 passed by the Ld. separate orders dated 30.09.2019 and 23.07.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [in short ‘the 40, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2008 Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009- -10 respectively. Being common grounds involved Being common grounds involved, permeating from same set of facts, from same set of facts, these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts.
The ground of appeal for the a The ground of appeal for the assessment year 2008 ssessment year 2008-09 is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in adding cash deposits amounting to Officer in adding cash deposits amounting to ₹12,05,700/ ₹12,05,700/- u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the same arose on u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the same arose on u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the same arose on account of sale account of sale of immovable property and the appellant had of immovable property and the appellant had proved the source of the same with supporting documentary proved the source of the same with supporting documentary proved the source of the same with supporting documentary evidences. evidences.
Jalaja S. Moolya 3 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
The grounds of appeal for assessment year 2009-10 are The grounds of appeal for assessment year 2009 The grounds of appeal for assessment year 2009 reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer T(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer T(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer without providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of without providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of without providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred CIT(A) erred-in confirming the action of the Ld. As in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in adding cash deposits amounting to in adding cash deposits amounting to ₹15,00,400/ ₹15,00,400/- us 69 without appreciating the fact that the said amount has been assessed to appreciating the fact that the said amount has been assessed to appreciating the fact that the said amount has been assessed to tax in the appellant's daughter's case. tax in the appellant's daughter's case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred i erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in n confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in adding cash deposits amounting to adding cash deposits amounting to ₹9,94,300/ ₹9,94,300/- without appreciating the fact that the same arose on account of sale of appreciating the fact that the same arose on account of sale of appreciating the fact that the same arose on account of sale of immovable property and the appellant had proved the source of immovable property and the appellant had proved the source of immovable property and the appellant had proved the source of the same with suppor the same with supporting documentary evidences. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in adding cash deposits amounting to in adding cash deposits amounting to ₹13,07,700/ ₹13,07,700/- u/s 69 without appreciating the facts that the s appreciating the facts that the same were out of the appellant's ame were out of the appellant's past savings and earlier cash withdrawals. past savings and earlier cash withdrawals. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed cash deposited in the bank accounts maintained by Officer observed cash deposited in the bank accounts maintained by Officer observed cash deposited in the bank accounts maintained by
Jalaja S. Moolya 4 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
the assessee in Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. In assessment year 2008 the assessee in Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. In assessment year 2008 the assessee in Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. In assessment year 2008- 09, the Assessing Officer observed cash deposit of 09, the Assessing Officer observed cash deposit of 09, the Assessing Officer observed cash deposit of ₹12,05,700/- in bank account No. 15734 maintained with Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. bank account No. 15734 maintained with Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. bank account No. 15734 maintained with Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. The assessee explained the source of ca The assessee explained the source of cash deposit deposit as out of sale consideration of ₹22.00 lakhs on sale of slum property at Thane, but 22.00 lakhs on sale of slum property at Thane, but 22.00 lakhs on sale of slum property at Thane, but no registered sale agreement was furnished. no registered sale agreement was furnished. In view of the In view of the unsatisfactory explanation unsatisfactory explanation/evidences of the source of cash deposit, of the source of cash deposit, the Assessing Officer added the said sum to the incom the Assessing Officer added the said sum to the incom the Assessing Officer added the said sum to the income of the assessee for assessment year 2008 assessee for assessment year 2008-09. In assessment year 2009 09. In assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer observed the Assessing Officer observed deposit in three bank account bank accounts (i) Firstly, cash deposit of cash deposit of ₹15,00,400/- in bank account No. 15735 in bank account No. 15735 maintained with Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. maintained with Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd., which which was claimed by the assessee as belonging to her belonging to her daughter but said explanation was but said explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and not accepted by the Assessing Officer and amount amount of cash deposit has been added to the income of the assessee. has been added to the income of the assessee. (ii) Secondly, cash (ii) Secondly, cash deposit of ₹21,02,000/ 21,02,000/- in bank account No. 15734 maintained in bank account No. 15734 maintained with
Jalaja S. Moolya 5 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd., the source of which was Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd., the source of which was explained explained by the assessee as sale of property as sale of property (₹9,94,300/-) and past withdrawal and past withdrawal (₹11,07,700/-), however, the , however, the said explanation of the assessee explanation of the assessee was not found satisfactory by the AO and he added the said sum to the ound satisfactory by the AO and he added the said sum to the ound satisfactory by the AO and he added the said sum to the income of the assessee. assessee. (iii) Thirdly, the Assessing Officer observed , the Assessing Officer observed cash deposit of ₹2 lakhs in bank account No. 1592 maintained with 2 lakhs in bank account No. 1592 maintained with 2 lakhs in bank account No. 1592 maintained with Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., the source of which was exp source of which was explained as past withdrawal and savings however past withdrawal and savings however in absence of evidences, in absence of evidences, the Assessing Officer added the said the Assessing Officer added the said amount to amount to income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the Assessing Officer in both assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the Assessing Officer in both assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the Assessing Officer in both the assessment years. the assessment years.
Aggrieved, the assessee is by w Aggrieved, the assessee is by way of grounds as reproduced ay of grounds as reproduced above before the Tribunal. above before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 41. containing pages 1 to 41.
Jalaja S. Moolya 6 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as Ground perused the relevant material on record. As far as Ground perused the relevant material on record. As far as Ground No. 1of the appeal for assessment year 2008 the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 of cash deposit of cash deposit of ₹12,05,700/- in bank account No. 15734 maintained with the Satara in bank account No. 15734 maintained with the Satara in bank account No. 15734 maintained with the Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. is concerned Sahakari Bank Ltd. is concerned, the assessee filed submission the assessee filed submission before the AO and also during remand proceedings before the L before the AO and also during remand proceedings before the L before the AO and also during remand proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee contended that the said amount of cash deposit CIT(A). The assessee contended that the said amount of cash deposit CIT(A). The assessee contended that the said amount of cash deposit was received on account of sale of slum property situated at was received on account of sale of slum property situated at was received on account of sale of slum property situated at Wagle Industrial Estate in Thane. According to the Industrial Estate in Thane. According to the assessee, assessee, said property was sold to Shri Nitin Vatkale was sold to Shri Nitin Vatkale but he was not traceable as he he was not traceable as he sold the property under reference to another person property under reference to another person ‘Shri Nilesh Shinde Shri Nilesh Shinde’. During remand proceedings, the assessee could not produce any During remand proceedings, the assessee could not produce any During remand proceedings, the assessee could not produce any agreement with respect to acquisition of the property. The assessee agreement with respect to acquisition of the property. The assessee agreement with respect to acquisition of the property. The assessee could not produce Shri Ni could not produce Shri Nitin Vatkale for examination by the tin Vatkale for examination by the Assessing Officer. Before us, t Before us, the assessee has submitted that person he assessee has submitted that person from whom, the assessee acquired the property i.e. from whom, the assessee acquired the property i.e. from whom, the assessee acquired the property i.e. Rajendra
Jalaja S. Moolya 7 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
Balaram Thakur accepted before the Assessing Officer that said Balaram Thakur accepted before the Assessing Officer that said Balaram Thakur accepted before the Assessing Officer that said property was sold by him. Fur property was sold by him. Further, the assessee contended that Mr. ther, the assessee contended that Mr. Nitin Vatkale sold the property to Shri Nilesh Shinde and Nilesh Nitin Vatkale sold the property to Shri Nilesh Shinde and Nilesh Nitin Vatkale sold the property to Shri Nilesh Shinde and Nilesh Shinde in terms accepted Shinde in terms accepted the purchase from Mr. Nitin Vatkale. The purchase from Mr. Nitin Vatkale. The assessee produced affidavit of Shri Ajay Shah assessee produced affidavit of Shri Ajay Shah, who who claimed to be agent for facilitating of sale of property from the assessee to Shri sale of property from the assessee to Shri Nitin Vatkale. However, the Assessing Officer rejected all these Nitin Vatkale. However, the Assessing Officer rejected all these Nitin Vatkale. However, the Assessing Officer rejected all these contentions of the assessee as according to him there was no contentions of the assessee as according to him there was no contentions of the assessee as according to him there was no registered agreement for transfer registered agreement for transfer of the property and the person to of the property and the person to whom the assessee has sold property ee has sold property, was not produced for was not produced for verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the verification of source of cash in his hand. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer are reproduced as under: Assessing Officer are reproduced as under:
“5. To the main query as to the cash deposit made in bank of To the main query as to the cash deposit made in bank of To the main query as to the cash deposit made in bank of Rs.12,05,700/- -, the assessee's explanation, as can be seen from the ation, as can be seen from the foregoing para, is that same is out of the sale consideration received foregoing para, is that same is out of the sale consideration received foregoing para, is that same is out of the sale consideration received from the transfer of a house property situated at Thane vide agreement from the transfer of a house property situated at Thane vide agreement from the transfer of a house property situated at Thane vide agreement dated 16/09/2007. According to the said agreement, the assessee dated 16/09/2007. According to the said agreement, the assessee dated 16/09/2007. According to the said agreement, the assessee Smt.Jalaja S.Moolya Smt.Jalaja S.Moolya had sold a property viz., Room Nos. 3 &.4, Mahatma had sold a property viz., Room Nos. 3 &.4, Mahatma Gandi Nagra, Kisan Nagar Gandi Nagra, Kisan Nagar -II, Road No. 16, Wagle IndI. Estate, Thane II, Road No. 16, Wagle IndI. Estate, Thane
Jalaja S. Moolya 8 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
400 604 to one Mr. Nitin Vatkale of Satara for a total consideration of 400 604 to one Mr. Nitin Vatkale of Satara for a total consideration of 400 604 to one Mr. Nitin Vatkale of Satara for a total consideration of Rs.22,00,000/- -. However, a perusal of the said agreement, it is . However, a perusal of the said agreement, it is seen that the address of the transferee is absolutely incomplete and the advance the address of the transferee is absolutely incomplete and the advance the address of the transferee is absolutely incomplete and the advance received as per the agreement is only Rs.1.00,000/ received as per the agreement is only Rs.1.00,000/-. As per Clause (2) of . As per Clause (2) of the said agreement, it is stated that the total consideration of the said agreement, it is stated that the total consideration of the said agreement, it is stated that the total consideration of Rs.22,00,000/- - will be paid on or before 15/03/2009. It is worthwhile to efore 15/03/2009. It is worthwhile to mention here that the said agreement did not indicate the payment mention here that the said agreement did not indicate the payment mention here that the said agreement did not indicate the payment schedule date- -wise but a vague condition governed the future payment. wise but a vague condition governed the future payment. The assessee has also not been able to furnish the details as to the The assessee has also not been able to furnish the details as to the The assessee has also not been able to furnish the details as to the receipt of Rs.21,00,000/ .21,00,000/- and hence not linked the said receipt with the and hence not linked the said receipt with the cash deposit appearing in the bank account with reference to its date of cash deposit appearing in the bank account with reference to its date of cash deposit appearing in the bank account with reference to its date of receipt and date of deposit. In the circumstances, assessee's contention receipt and date of deposit. In the circumstances, assessee's contention receipt and date of deposit. In the circumstances, assessee's contention that the cash deposit is directly discernable to t that the cash deposit is directly discernable to the sale consideration he sale consideration received can not be accepted. It is further explained by the assessee's received can not be accepted. It is further explained by the assessee's received can not be accepted. It is further explained by the assessee's representative that the entire consideration is received in cash. This also representative that the entire consideration is received in cash. This also representative that the entire consideration is received in cash. This also appears to be incredible. appears to be incredible.
Further, the sale agreement furnished by the assessee is not a Further, the sale agreement furnished by the assessee is Further, the sale agreement furnished by the assessee is valid one as per law in view of the fact that the same suffered from the valid one as per law in view of the fact that the same suffered from the valid one as per law in view of the fact that the same suffered from the following infirmities. following infirmities.
i. The purchase of stamp paper is made in the name of one Shri The purchase of stamp paper is made in the name of one Shri The purchase of stamp paper is made in the name of one Shri Ajay N Shah whereas this should have been bought either by the Ajay N Shah whereas this should have been bought either by the Ajay N Shah whereas this should have been bought either by the purchaser seller and not by a purchaser seller and not by a third party. Shri Ajay N. Shah is a third party. Shri Ajay N. Shah is a third party. third party. ii. The document is not registered. The document is not registered. The stamp duty payable as per the Government rate is not iii. The stamp duty payable as per the Government rate is not The stamp duty payable as per the Government rate is not quantified no any payment in this connection is made. quantified no any payment in this connection is made. quantified no any payment in this connection is made.
7.1 The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as unde The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as unde
Jalaja S. Moolya 9 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
“4. Decision: Decision:
The only issue as stated by the appellant in his grounds of appeal is The only issue as stated by the appellant in his grounds of appeal is The only issue as stated by the appellant in his grounds of appeal is regarding addition made by the A.O.of Rs.1205700/ regarding addition made by the A.O.of Rs.1205700/- being the cash being the cash deposit appeared in the assesses bank account with the Satara deposit appeared in the assesses bank account with the Satara deposit appeared in the assesses bank account with the Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. Since the assessee was Sahakari Bank Ltd. Since the assessee was not able to offer any not able to offer any cogent, convincing explanation in regard to the source of the said cogent, convincing explanation in regard to the source of the said cogent, convincing explanation in regard to the source of the said cash deposit the entire cash deposit aggregating to Rs.1205700/ cash deposit the entire cash deposit aggregating to Rs.1205700/ cash deposit the entire cash deposit aggregating to Rs.1205700/- was added to the total income of the assessee u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. was added to the total income of the assessee u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. was added to the total income of the assessee u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. The appellant filed an appeal b The appellant filed an appeal before the then Commissioner of efore the then Commissioner of Income tax(A) by filing a set of additional evidences on which the Income tax(A) by filing a set of additional evidences on which the Income tax(A) by filing a set of additional evidences on which the then CIT(A) called for a remand report vide his letter dt.03.05.2012. then CIT(A) called for a remand report vide his letter dt.03.05.2012. then CIT(A) called for a remand report vide his letter dt.03.05.2012. The A.O. in his remand report filed on the addition made at The A.O. in his remand report filed on the addition made at The A.O. in his remand report filed on the addition made at Rs.1205700/- in his order dt. 29.12.2010 u/s.143(3) of the I.T. . 29.12.2010 u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his letter 1961 vide his letter dt. 28.06.2012 in which the A.O. has stated that dt. 28.06.2012 in which the A.O. has stated that the appellant has reiterated his stand that the appellant has reiterated his stand that the source of cash the source of cash deposit reflected in the bank account represents the sale proceed a deposit reflected in the bank account represents the sale proceed a deposit reflected in the bank account represents the sale proceed a slum situated situated at Wagle Estate in Thane, which was the bone of at Wagle Estate in Thane, which was the bone of contention raised by the assessee at contention raised by the assessee at the time of asstt.proceedings. the time of asstt.proceedings. The A.O. made the addition of cash deposits u/s.68 for the The A.O. made the addition of cash deposits u/s.68 for the The A.O. made the addition of cash deposits u/s.68 for the reasons that the assessee had not registered the above said property with that the assessee had not registered the above said property with that the assessee had not registered the above said property with the Registrar and istrar and no evidence to show that any stamp duty paid in no evidence to show that any stamp duty paid in connection with the transaction. The connection with the transaction. The appellant in the remand appellant in the remand proceedings contended that since the property under sale was a proceedings contended that since the property under sale was a proceedings contended that since the property under sale was a alum, bay the same could not be registered with the Registrar for alum, bay the same could not be registered with the Registrar for alum, bay the same could not be registered with the Registrar for want of basic document. The basic document. The slums are not constructed in a not constructed in a authorized land and hence it is embroiled with various land and hence it is embroiled with various land and hence it is embroiled with various circumstances circumstances. Therefore the said documents could not be . Therefore the said documents could not be
Jalaja S. Moolya 10 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
registered nor any stamp duty registered nor any stamp duty could be paid. Since the transfer was could be paid. Since the transfer was not legal even the recei not legal even the receipt of consideration also received in cash. pt of consideration also received in cash.
In the remand report the A.O. has also clearly mentioned the In the remand report the A.O. has also clearly mentioned the In the remand report the A.O. has also clearly mentioned the genuineness of the assessees sale transaction, the assessee said to genuineness of the assessees sale transaction, the assessee said to genuineness of the assessees sale transaction, the assessee said to have sold this property to one Shri Nitin Vatkale who was not have sold this property to one Shri Nitin Vatkale who was not have sold this property to one Shri Nitin Vatkale who was not traceable as he had le traceable as he had left the place by selling the property in question ft the place by selling the property in question to one Shri Nilesh Shine. The A.O. has also clearly mentioned in his to one Shri Nilesh Shine. The A.O. has also clearly mentioned in his to one Shri Nilesh Shine. The A.O. has also clearly mentioned in his remand report that the appellant could not produce any agreement remand report that the appellant could not produce any agreement remand report that the appellant could not produce any agreement either with respective acquisition of property or an agreement from either with respective acquisition of property or an agreement from either with respective acquisition of property or an agreement from Mr. Nilesh Shinde who is reported to have purchase the property ilesh Shinde who is reported to have purchase the property ilesh Shinde who is reported to have purchase the property from Mr. Nitin Vatkale. The assessee was able to produce only one from Mr. Nitin Vatkale. The assessee was able to produce only one from Mr. Nitin Vatkale. The assessee was able to produce only one agreement i.e. relating to sale of the property to Mr.Vatkale. It is not agreement i.e. relating to sale of the property to Mr.Vatkale. It is not agreement i.e. relating to sale of the property to Mr.Vatkale. It is not clear as to how the other transactions took place without clear as to how the other transactions took place without clear as to how the other transactions took place without the support of any agreement. support of any agreement.
Over and above the A.O. issued summons u/s.131 to verify the Over and above the A.O. issued summons u/s.131 to verify the Over and above the A.O. issued summons u/s.131 to verify the genuineness of the loan transactions reflected in the appellants genuineness of the loan transactions reflected in the appellants genuineness of the loan transactions reflected in the appellants bank account i.e. Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. and the Thane Janta bank account i.e. Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. and the Thane Janta bank account i.e. Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. and the Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Out of the total Sahakari Bank Ltd. Out of the total 17 loan creditors summons 17 loan creditors summons u/s.131 were served on 14 parties. However, only 7 parties u/s.131 were served on 14 parties. However, only 7 parties u/s.131 were served on 14 parties. However, only 7 parties responded to the summons who were examined on oath, u/s.131 of responded to the summons who were examined on oath, u/s.131 of responded to the summons who were examined on oath, u/s.131 of the I.T. Act. In their deposition all the 7 parties confirmed having the I.T. Act. In their deposition all the 7 parties confirmed having the I.T. Act. In their deposition all the 7 parties confirmed having given loans to the assessee. But none o given loans to the assessee. But none of them have filed any f them have filed any supporting documentary evidence accept confirmation letter, copy supporting documentary evidence accept confirmation letter, copy supporting documentary evidence accept confirmation letter, copy of IT. acknowledgment to buttress their claim of having given the of IT. acknowledgment to buttress their claim of having given the of IT. acknowledgment to buttress their claim of having given the loan. The parties also could not file any bank statement to loan. The parties also could not file any bank statement to loan. The parties also could not file any bank statement to substantiate the loan transaction which cle substantiate the loan transaction which clearly establish that they arly establish that they failed to prove that loan being genuine i.e. identity, genuineness and failed to prove that loan being genuine i.e. identity, genuineness and failed to prove that loan being genuine i.e. identity, genuineness and credit worthiness. Hence they could not establish the loans said to credit worthiness. Hence they could not establish the loans said to credit worthiness. Hence they could not establish the loans said to
Jalaja S. Moolya 11 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
have been extended to the appellant. The A.O. has also verified the have been extended to the appellant. The A.O. has also verified the have been extended to the appellant. The A.O. has also verified the above said loan creditor above said loan creditors who do not have significant source of s who do not have significant source of livelihood or earning capacity as it can be seen from the copies of livelihood or earning capacity as it can be seen from the copies of livelihood or earning capacity as it can be seen from the copies of return of income filed which all reflect the income below taxable return of income filed which all reflect the income below taxable return of income filed which all reflect the income below taxable limits in most of the loan creditors appeared before him. limits in most of the loan creditors appeared before him.
The A.O. further filed a The A.O. further filed another report dt.27.09.2013 on the details of nother report dt.27.09.2013 on the details of loans as claimed by the appellant and to their genuineness. In most loans as claimed by the appellant and to their genuineness. In most loans as claimed by the appellant and to their genuineness. In most of the cases, the loan creditors have not filed any documentary of the cases, the loan creditors have not filed any documentary of the cases, the loan creditors have not filed any documentary evidence in support of having advanced loan to the assessee accept evidence in support of having advanced loan to the assessee accept evidence in support of having advanced loan to the assessee accept filing confirmations letters and copy of acknowledgment of IT. irmations letters and copy of acknowledgment of IT. irmations letters and copy of acknowledgment of IT. return. It is also observed that in most of the cases the account return. It is also observed that in most of the cases the account return. It is also observed that in most of the cases the account holder was introduced by one or two persons only and it was holder was introduced by one or two persons only and it was holder was introduced by one or two persons only and it was noticed that the bank accounts opened by the alleged loan creditors noticed that the bank accounts opened by the alleged loan creditors noticed that the bank accounts opened by the alleged loan creditors in Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mulund were opened within a span of Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mulund were opened within a span of Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mulund were opened within a span of 2 to 3 days by depositing cash of Rs.500/ 2 to 3 days by depositing cash of Rs.500/- or 1000/- and just before and just before transfer of fund from the bank account of the loan creditors to that transfer of fund from the bank account of the loan creditors to that transfer of fund from the bank account of the loan creditors to that of the assessee there have been cash deposit for the same amou of the assessee there have been cash deposit for the same amou of the assessee there have been cash deposit for the same amount. Thus the deposits in the hank account of the assessee can be linked Thus the deposits in the hank account of the assessee can be linked Thus the deposits in the hank account of the assessee can be linked to the cash deposits in the bank of this alleged to the cash deposits in the bank of this alleged loan creditors. On loan creditors. On analysis of bank a/c. statement of the alleged loan creditors reveal analysis of bank a/c. statement of the alleged loan creditors reveal analysis of bank a/c. statement of the alleged loan creditors reveal the modus operandi adopted by the appellant. It the modus operandi adopted by the appellant. It is kind of circle of is kind of circle of transactions that the loan creditors have come to the assesses bank transactions that the loan creditors have come to the assesses bank transactions that the loan creditors have come to the assesses bank account after transfer of funds from one bank account to another account after transfer of funds from one bank account to another account after transfer of funds from one bank account to another amongst the alleged loan creditors and other persons. Keeping in amongst the alleged loan creditors and other persons. Keeping in amongst the alleged loan creditors and other persons. Keeping in view of the submissions made by the view of the submissions made by the A.R. of the appellant as well as A.R. of the appellant as well as remand report, the addition made by the A.O. to the extent of remand report, the addition made by the A.O. to the extent of remand report, the addition made by the A.O. to the extent of Rs.1205700/- is hereby confirmed as unexplained credits in the is hereby confirmed as unexplained credits in the
Jalaja S. Moolya 12 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
bank account of the appellant u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. All the grounds bank account of the appellant u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. All the grounds bank account of the appellant u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. All the grounds of appeal filed are hereby d of appeal filed are hereby dismissed.” 7.2 It is evident that source of cash of It is evident that source of cash of ₹12,05,700/ 12,05,700/- deposited in Bank account has been explained as out of sale consideration of Bank account has been explained as out of sale consideration of Bank account has been explained as out of sale consideration of ₹22.00 lakhs received on sale of property but the assessee (i) 22.00 lakhs received on sale of property but the assessee (i) 22.00 lakhs received on sale of property but the assessee (i) has not produced registered agreement not produced registered agreement for sale of property (ii) not sale of property (ii) not produced any evidence in support of creditworthiness of buyer to produced any evidence in support of creditworthiness of buyer to produced any evidence in support of creditworthiness of buyer to show availability of cash in hand with him. show availability of cash in hand with him. In view of the above In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the assessee has failed to explain the discussion, in our opinion, the assessee has failed to explain the discussion, in our opinion, the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits amountin source of cash deposits amounting to ₹12,05,700/- - and therefore, we do not find any error in finding of error in finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in- dispute and accordingly, accordingly, the ground No. 1 appeal of No. 1 appeal of assessee for AY 2008-09 is dismissed. is dismissed.
As far as Ground No. 3 for Ground No. 3 for assessment year 2009 assessment year 2009-10 is concerned, regarding regarding source of cash deposit of ₹ 9,94,300/ 9,94,300/- out of ₹21,02,000/- in bank account NO. 15734 maintained with Satara in bank account NO. 15734 maintained with Satara in bank account NO. 15734 maintained with Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. the assessee explained the assessee explained the same the same as out of sale of
Jalaja S. Moolya 13 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
slum property, which was slum property, which was sold for sum of a sum of ₹22,00,000/ 22,00,000/- and the amount of ₹12,05,700/ 12,05,700/- was deposited in assessment year 2008 was deposited in assessment year 2008- 09 and the balance amount of 09 and the balance amount of ₹9,94,900/- was deposited in was deposited in assessment year 2009 assessment year 2009-10. Since, we have already rejected the 10. Since, we have already rejected the contention of the assessee of source of deposit of cash contention of the assessee of source of deposit of cash contention of the assessee of source of deposit of cash ₹12,05,700/- in assessment year 2008 in assessment year 2008-09, therefore, the balance amount of the balance amount of ₹9,94,900/- claimed to have been deposited out of sale of the said claimed to have been deposited out of sale of the said claimed to have been deposited out of sale of the said property is also rejected property is also rejected. The ground No. 3 of the appeal for AY The ground No. 3 of the appeal for AY 2009-10 is accordingly dismissed. 10 is accordingly dismissed.
8.1 As far as amount of As far as amount of ₹13,07,700/- challenged in ground No. 4 is challenged in ground No. 4 is concerned, which is related to the balance amount of the balance amount of ₹11,07,700/- cash deposited in Bank account No. 15734 and cash deposited in Bank account No. 15734 and ₹2,00,000/ 2,00,000/- cash deposited in bank account No. 1592 with Thane Janta Sahkari Bank deposited in bank account No. 1592 with Thane Janta Sahkari Bank deposited in bank account No. 1592 with Thane Janta Sahkari Bank Ltd., the assessee ex assessee explained that same was deposited out of past plained that same was deposited out of past withdrawals and savings. The Ld. CIT(A) held that no evidences withdrawals and savings. The Ld. CIT(A) held that no evidences withdrawals and savings. The Ld. CIT(A) held that no evidences were furnished in support of contention of past withdrawals and were furnished in support of contention of past withdrawals and were furnished in support of contention of past withdrawals and
Jalaja S. Moolya 14 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
savings. Before us, also no evidences have been filed by the assessee savings. Before us, also no evidences have been filed by the assessee savings. Before us, also no evidences have been filed by the assessee to show that cash has been deposited out of the past withdrawals or sh has been deposited out of the past withdrawals or sh has been deposited out of the past withdrawals or saving. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the findings saving. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the findings saving. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on issue of the Ld. CIT(A) on issue-in-dispute. The ground No. 4 of the appeal dispute. The ground No. 4 of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. is accordingly dismissed.
In ground No. 2, the assessee ha In ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the addition of s challenged the addition of ₹15,00,000/- for cash deposit in Bank account No. 15735 in Satara for cash deposit in Bank account No. 15735 in Satara for cash deposit in Bank account No. 15735 in Satara Sahkari Bank Ltd. The assessee claimed that bank account is held as Sahkari Bank Ltd. The assessee claimed that bank account is held as Sahkari Bank Ltd. The assessee claimed that bank account is held as first holder by her daughter and his name is appearing as second first holder by her daughter and his name is appearing as second first holder by her daughter and his name is appearing as second holder. He submitted holder. He submitted that addition was made in hands of daughter made in hands of daughter also and assessment proceedings in her case has already been also and assessment proceedings in her case has already been also and assessment proceedings in her case has already been quashed by the Ld. CIT(A). quashed by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have seen the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.05.2019 in We have seen the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.05.2019 in We have seen the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.05.2019 in case of his daughter Kumari Subhlaxmi S. Bangera. We find that the case of his daughter Kumari Subhlaxmi S. Bangera. We find that the case of his daughter Kumari Subhlaxmi S. Bangera. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed reassessment proceedings in her case on the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed reassessment proceedings in her case on the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed reassessment proceedings in her case on the ground of change of opinion. No finding has been given ground of change of opinion. No finding has been given ground of change of opinion. No finding has been given regarding
Jalaja S. Moolya 15 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
the source of cash deposit of the source of cash deposit of ₹15,00,400/-. In view of the claim of . In view of the claim of the assessee before us that said cash deposit belongs t the assessee before us that said cash deposit belongs t the assessee before us that said cash deposit belongs to her daughter, we feel appropriate to restore the issue back to the daughter, we feel appropriate to restore the issue back to the daughter, we feel appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer, for verification of claim of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, for verification of claim of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, for verification of claim of the assessee. The onus is on the assessee to produce evidence in support that said cash on the assessee to produce evidence in support that said cash on the assessee to produce evidence in support that said cash deposit is out of the income of her daughter deposit is out of the income of her daughter, which , which is subjected to Income-tax. The ground is accordingly allowed for statistical tax. The ground is accordingly allowed for statistical tax. The ground is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.
The ground No. 1 of the appeal was not pressed and hence The ground No. 1 of the appeal was not pressed and hence The ground No. 1 of the appeal was not pressed and hence dismissed as infructuous. dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal for AY 2008 In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is dismissed, whereas 09 is dismissed, whereas appeal for AY 2009-10 is allowed partly for statistical purposes. 10 is allowed partly for statistical purposes. 10 is allowed partly for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on ounced in the Court on 27/07/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/07/2022
Jalaja S. Moolya 16 ITA Nos. 7734 & 6697/M/2019
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai