BHIMRAO ARJUNRAO BHAKARE,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

Assessee is an individual, who electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 11.11.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.1,91,320/-. Subsequently, on same day assessee filed revised return of income revising the total income at Rs.1,62,970/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and

thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order

dt.31.12.2013 and the total income was determined at Rs.18,46,091/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A),

who vide order dt.04.07.2016 (in appeal No. ABD/CIT(A)-2/383/2013-14)

granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A),

assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order

dt.17.05.2018 in ITA No.2160/PUN/2016 dismissed the appeal of the

assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed Miscellaneous Application contending

that there were certain errors in the order and therefore prayed for recalling

of the order. Consequently, the Tribunal vide M.A. No.83/PUN/2018 order

dt.12.03.2019 recalled the earlier order dated 17.05.2018. Thus, assessee

is now in second appeal. Now the assessee has revised the grounds which

read as under :

“The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.10,17,000/- on account of cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee.”

assessee has deposited cash aggregating to Rs.11,50,000/- in his savings

Bank account maintained with Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., and

Rs.14,17,000/- in the saving Bank account maintained with Central Bank

of India. The assessee was asked to explain the source of deposits in those

Banks. AO noted that with respect to the source of deposits of

Rs.2,66,121/- with Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank, assessee could not

explain with satisfaction the details and source of deposits. He therefore

made the addition of the aforesaid amount as an unexplained money u/s

69C of the Act. With respect to cash deposits with Central Bank of India,

AO noted that assessee could not explain the source of deposits of

Rs.14,17,000/-. He accordingly made addition of Rs.14,17,000/- u/s 69A

of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before

Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the remand report received from AO and

assessee’s reply to remand report held that assessee had explained the cash

deposits with respect to Rs.4 lakhs. He accordingly confirmed the cash

balance of Rs.10,17,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is

now in appeal.

Ld.CIT(A) and pointed to the observations of the remand report which are

re-produced by the Ld.CIT(A) and from it he pointed out that Shri Arjun

Bhimrao, father of the assessee had stated that he owned agricultural land

and his agricultural income was about 4 to 5 lakhs. He further submitted

that AO in the remand report has accepted the fact of income from

agriculture of his father at Rs.4 lakhs per year and thus, total cash

availability for two years at Rs.8 lakhs stands explained. In such a

situation, he submitted that assessee’s explanation with respect to the cash

deposits aggregating to Rs.8 lakhs needs to be accepted. Ld. D.R. on the

other hand, supported the order of AO and Ld.CIT(A).

record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the addition

made on account of unexplained cash deposits by the assessee in Central

Bank of India. As against the total deposits of Rs.14,17,000/-, which was

added as income by AO. Ld.CIT(A) after considering the remand report,

granted relief to the extent of Rs.4 lakhs and confirmed the addition to the

extent of Rs.10,17,000/-. The perusal of the remand report which is

reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A) reveals that during the remand proceedings,

Arjun Bhimrao, the father of the assessee stated that he owned agricultural

land and had agricultural income of Rs.4 to 5 lakhs per year. After

considering the submission of assessee’s father Arjun Bhimrao, AO has noted that the total cash availability for two years was about Rs.8 lakhs. In such a situation, I am of the view that to the extent of Rs.8 lakhs, the cash deposits in Central Bank of India by the assessee stands explained. I therefore, direct the deletion of addition to the extent of Rs. 8 lakhs. Before me for the balance addition of Rs.2,17,000/- since no explanation has been offered by Ld.A.R. nor has he pointed to any error / fallacy in the findings of lower authorities, I uphold the addition to the extent of Rs.2,17,000/-. Thus, the ground of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 18th day of October, 2019.

/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 18th October, 2019. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad. 4. Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक सद�य” / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.