KIRAN ANANDRAO PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, ICHALKARANJI

Tersely stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.8,50,000 in his bank account. In the absence of any acceptable explanation put forth by the assessee, the AO made the above-said addition as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the cash was deposited out of `Business income‟. Not convinced, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

Having heard rival submissions in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee made repayment of loan of Rs.43,95,500 by means of a Demand Draft from his bank account held with Shri Veershaiv Co-operative Bank Ltd. Before making the Demand Draft, the assessee made several cash deposits as well as transfers through cheques, the details of which have been given in para 3.6 of the assessment order. Such amount of deposits totaled upto Rs.44,31,076. The assessee contended that one of the cash deposits, viz., of Rs.8,50,000 was out of `Business receipts‟. In support of such a claim, the assessee filed certain books of accounts. It is worth mentioning that the assessee filed his return of income by offering income u/s 44AD and contending that no books were maintained. The entries in Cash Book prepared and submitted by the assessee were found by the AO to be incorrect for the detailed reasons given in the assessment order. The ld. AR could not improve the case of assessee before the Tribunal and candidly accepted that there was no further evidence. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the addition of Rs.8,50,000 has been rightly sustained in the first appeal. 5. The other issue challenged in the appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.19 lakhs on account of unexplained credits. The assessee could not justify creditworthiness of the alleged loan of Rs.19 lakhs purportedly taken from his wife, Mrs. Shubhangi Kiran Patil, despite repeated opportunities given to explain the sources of her income. Eventually, the AO made the addition, which came to be countenanced in the first appeal. 6. Having heard the rival submissions in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee recorded credit of Rs.19 lakhs in the name of his wife but failed to substantiate creditworthiness of loan creditor before the AO. What to talk of creditworthiness, even no source of income was shown.

The position remains the same before the Tribunal as well. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition. The impugned order is, ergo, upheld. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.