SHRI CHANDRAKANT BALASAHEB JADHAV,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-5, SATARA

The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee had in association with some persons of his village had made application and had obtained license for sand mining and the money deposited in bank belonged to all of them.

The Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,42,18,500/- without appreciating that this amount did not belong to the assessee alone but was contributed by the assessee's associates and the addition was bad in law.

The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.

The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in course of the appeal proceedings.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.”

Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of cash deposits of Rs.1,42,18,500/- u/s.69A of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that the Authorized Representative of the Assessee Mr. Udayan Patil failed to submit details during the assessment proceedings.

1 The ld.AR submitted paper book containing 179 pages which were mainly affidavits of some 23 persons. Ld.AR submitted that it was additional evidence. Ld.AR pleaded vehemently that the said

Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the revenue vehemently opposed admission of Additional Evidence. Ld.DR took us through the Order of the ld.CIT(A) and AO. Ld.DR submitted that even before the ld.CIT(A) assessee filed appeal with delay. The Assessee submitted before ld.CIT(A) that he has appointed New Tax Consultant . Ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay and issued notices. But again no submission was made by the Assessee or his so called New Tax Consultant before the ld.CIT(A), hence, Ld.CIT(A) based on the facts available on record confirmed the addition.

1 Ld.DR submitted that Assessee has consciously not filed details earlier so that time is lost and the AO does not get time to investigate. There was no valid reason for not submitting the documents.

2 Ld.DR invited our attention to the affidavits and submitted that all the affidavits are self serving documents without any basis.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee filed Return of Income electronically on 21.12.2015 declaring total income at Rs.12,45,680/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) dated 20.09.2016 was served on the Assessee. Subsequently, various notices were served on assessee. Mr.Udayan Patial Authorised Representative of the Assessee attended before the Assessing Officer. He was requested to explain the source of cash deposits. Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued showcause notice dated 06.12.2017 wherein, Assessing Officer specifically referred to the Bank Statements obtained u/s.133(6) from the Banks. The Authorised Representative Mr.Udyan Patil attended on 19.12.2017, however, no explanation was filed. Since no explanation was filed by the Assessee regarding cash deposits, Assessing Officer decided the case based on the documents available including Bank Statement collected u/s.133(6) of the Act. Following cash deposits have been made by the Assessee during F.Y.2014-15 on various dates in the Banks :  Axis Bank - Rs.1,02,79,000/-  Col. RD Nippan Sainik Sahakar Bank Limited -Rs.14,90,000/-

The Assessing Officer made addition u/s.69A of Rs.1,42,18,500/- treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. Aggrieved by the Assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). There was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The Assessment Order was passed on 27.12.2017, but the appeal was filed before ld.CIT(A) on 23.03.2018. Ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. It is noted that no submission was made by the Assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, based on the documents available, statement of facts filed by the Assessee along with the Appeal Memo, the Appeal Memo in Form No.35, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition, as no specific evidence was filed by Assessee to prove the source of cash deposits.

Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 29.05.2023 for A.Y.2015-16, the Assessee filed appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Form No.36 on 14.06.2024. Thus, the appeal filed was beyond the statutory limit.

1 Hearing of the case was fixed on 22.10.2024. Ld.AR Dr.Prayag Jha sought adjournment, which was granted. Then,

Assessee in his Affidavit submitted that Assessee is engaged in social work and have good contacts in the village. Ld.AR read out the Affidavit of the Assessee. The relevant part of the Affidavit of the Assessee notarized on 23.12.2024 are reproduced here as under : “3. I say that, the Krishna River flows near my village. I learnt from the office of Collector Satara that a tender was to be floated for mining of sand from the river at Tasgaon-Kathapur, Taluka Satara, District Satara. I inquired about the amount of fees, etc, to be paid to the office of the Collector Satara so that I could make a reasonable and proper offer.

I say that, I have been engaged in social work and have contact with large number of people residing in my village and also in surrounding villages. These persons have been mostly farmers: I discussed the matter of tender and making offer for the same. I also explain to my friends and acquaintances about expected expenditure and also expected amount of which may be received on sale of sands mined from the river bed near Tasgaon-Kathapur.

It is observed that on 21.04.2014, Rs.7,50,000/- has been deposited in cash in the State Bank of India Account of the Assessee. Some of the Deposits are mentioned as under : Date Bank Amount Narration in the Bank Statement 21.04.2014 State Bank of India Rs.7,50,000/- Cash deposit self 24.04.2014 State Bank of India Rs.5,30,000/- Cash deposit self 28.04.2014 State Bank of India Rs.11,10,000/- Cash deposit self 28.04.2014 Col. R D Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara Rs.8,00,000/- Cash deposit 30.04.2014 State Bank of India Rs.59,500/- Cash deposit self

We specifically requested ld.AR to explain these deposits and the name of the persons who have made these deposits. Ld.AR could not explain us. Ld.AR merely pleaded that the case may be set-aside to the Assessing Officer. There are numerous entries of these kind in the Bank Account Statements of the Assessee. The Affidavits of the persons does not specify the dates on which these amounts were deposited. All the Affidavits are vague.

We failed to understand why Assessee has not submitted these Affidavits during the Assessment Proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Rather all the Affidavits have been executed in December- 2024 explains that at the time assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A), the Affidavits were not available. Rather it is a story without legs. The Assessee has submitted these Affidavits after ten years, because no action can be initiated against those persons under the Income Tax Act, who claims to have given these amounts.

We specifically asked ld.AR that how much profit was earned from the sand business and how much amount was given to each of these so-called depositors! Ld.AR has not given any specific answer.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is an admitted fact that Assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.1,42,18,500/- in cash in the Three Bank Accounts mentioned in the Assessment Order. Though ld.AR appeared before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, no specific explanation was submitted qua impugned cash deposits. Similarly, no explanation submitted qua

In Ground No.1, Assessee had pleaded that sufficient opportunity was not granted by ld.CIT(A). However, it is noticed that ld.CIT(A) had issued notices dated 07.01.2021, 11.06.2021, 20.04.2023. But, the Assessee failed to file any reply. Therefore, there is no merit in Ground No.1, accordingly, Ground No.1 is dismissed.

In Ground No.2 : “The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee had in association with some persons of his village had made

1 In the Ground No.2, Assessee has pleaded that AO failed to appreciate that Assessee along with his friends had made an application for Sand Mining and the impugned amount was deposited for Sand Mining. We have already mentioned that no tender document has been filed before us or before ld.Assessing Officer/ld.CIT(A). No copy of the so-called application made by the Assessee and his friends for obtaining Sand Mining License has been filed till date. No copy of Sand Mining License issued by Competent Authority has been filed till date. Therefore, Assessee has miserably failed to prove the averments made in Ground No.2. Accordingly, Ground No.2 is dismissed.

Assessee has pleaded that the impugned amount was contributed by Assessee’s Associates. We have already discussed at length in earlier paragraphs that no specific evidence has been filed to prove the same. Ld.AR failed to prove the deposits appearing in the Bank Account and its co-relation with the so-called deposits claimed to have been made by Assessee’s friends/associates. The ITA No.1360/PUN/2024 [A]

Ground No.4 and 6 are general in nature, needs no adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No.4 and 6 are dismissed.

Ground No.5 is related to additional evidences which we have already discussed at length above. Accordingly, Ground No.5 is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 Sep, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE

गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File.