SAURAV MITTAL,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(3),, SILIGURI

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 20.08.2024 for the AY 2017-18. 02. The only issue raised by the assessee in various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹51,45,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited during the relevant financial year into the bank account.
03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.03.2018, declaring total income of ₹8,02,930/-. The case of the Sourav Mittal; A.Y. 2017-18

assessee was selected under limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposited during the financial year. Accordingly, statutory and other notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee replied the said notices during the assessment proceedings from time to time by filing the necessary evidences and details . The ld. AO noted that in the Para no.7 of the assessment order that the assessee got married on 29.02.2016. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee has shown to have received cash marriage gifts to the tune of ₹2,01,03,300/- from 823 persons, which were part of the cash in hand as on 01.04.2016 and out of which the assessee deposited ₹50.00 lacs on 22.05.2016 and 1,45,000/- on 31st
March, 2017, whereas the evidences were given only in respect of ₹3,39,000/-. Accordingly, the ld. AO concluded that assessee has not filed any evidences to substantiate the cash deposited of ₹51,45,000/- in the bank account of the assessee and the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act and added to the income of the assessee.
04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by observing and holding as under:-
“7.3. In the instant case also, the appellant was unable to provide confirmation of the purported gifts received during his marriage. The appellant was also unable to furnish the veracity of opening cash balance as the creditworthiness of the donors and the genuineness of gifts itself was not proved. The appellant was unable to provide confirmation from any of the purported donors, and as the sources claimed by the appellant are not proved with cogent reasoning and confirmation, the veracity of cash balance and its sources itself is to be treated as unexplained. The Income Tax Returns filed by the appellant for the AY 2016-
17 and AY 2017-18 are perused in the course of appellate proceedings. It is noticed from the ITR filed by the appellant that no details regarding purported gifts were furnished in the return of income filed by the appellant for the AY
2016-17 and the appellant has also not furnished any details of purported cash balance available with him as on 31.03.2016. Thus, as the appellant has failed
Sourav Mittal; A.Y. 2017-18

to prove the genuineness of the deposits made even during the appellate proceedings, this appellate authority is of the opinion that the addition made by the assessing officer does not call for any interference. The addition made by the assessing officer is thus sustained. Accordingly, Ground no: 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the appellant are dismissed.”
05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee got married on 29.02.2016 and received marriage donation/saguns from 823 persons in cash aggregating to Rs. 2,01,03,300. He assessee belongs to a very prestigious family who is a big industrialist. The ld. AO did belief this fact of the assessee having been married on 29.02.2016 and cash received of ₹2,01,03,300/-. However, the AO only doubted that the assessee has not furnished any evidences to substantiate the cash deposited into the bank of ₹51,45,000/- and accordingly added the same to the income of the assessee though the assessee furnished some evidences in respect of few doners. The ld. CIT (A) simply dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate the cash deposited into the bank. This is undisputed that assessee received this money in the preceding assessment year when he got married and whatever he deposited during the year on two occasions that ₹50.00 lacs on 22.06.2016 and ₹1,45,000/- on 31.03.2017 were deposited out of the opening balance brought forward from the earlier year. Therefore, the addition if any for unexplained cash marriage gifts if at all could be made in the year of receipt and not in the impugned assessment year. In our opinion, during the year assessee has not received any money as marriage gifts but only the money received in the preceding assessment year was deposited on two occasions as stated hereinabove. Therefore, we are in not concurrence with the finding of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly,
Sourav Mittal; A.Y. 2017-18

we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition.
06. In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2025. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY)
(RAJESH KUMAR)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Kolkata, Dated: 15.01.2025
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst.