NITIN MADHUKAR RATHI,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6, PUNE

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 04-09-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

The assessee raised four grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the AO found the assessee received unsecured loan from various parties and issued notice u/s. 133(6) to all loan creditors. The AO reproduced such details in the assessment order at Page No. 2 which is as under : Sr. Name Amount of Return Bank Remark No. Unsecured Income Statement Loan Given Submitted 1 Alka Jain 800000 287000 Yes 2 Ashok Jain 1000000 290000 Salary No income generating Account apparatus and regular source of income. Money comes in banks flows out. 3 Ashwini 500000 300000 No Kulkarni 4 Pankajlal 500000 Yes Mundada 5 Shobha Battad 500000 Below Yes No income generating Taxable apparatus and regular Limit source of income. Money comes in banks flows out. 6 Kalpana Kataria 1200000 315000 Yes 7 Manoj Pardeshi 1000000 8 Bharati Tapadia 500000 228000 Yes No income generating apparatus and regular source of income. Money comes in banks flows out. Total 6000000

On perusal of the above, names of the loan creditors, amount of loan, return income, bank statement and remark of AO were given. We note that the contention of AO is that no income generating and regular source of income, money comes in banks flows out against Sr. No. 2, 5 and 8 for remaining the AO held bank statement were submitted for all except Sr. No. 3. In pursuance of such remark the AO added Rs.60,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail and taking into consideration the submissions of assessee and evidences produced with regard to cash deposits given partial relief to an extent of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rs.60,00,000/- - Rs.38,00,000/-). We note that from the impugned order at Para No. 5.3.2 that the CIT(A) considering the details regarding Mr. Manoj Pardeshi has given amount for purchase of property deleted the addition of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further, an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- has been deleted in the hands of Ms. Kalpana Kataria taking into consideration the statements in respect of asset and liability. Further, holding that she has source/income capacity to lend such money. In the remaining six creditors the CIT(A) held that they have no creditworthiness to lend such loan amount to the assessee which was said to have been admitted by the authorized representative on behalf of the assessee. Before us, no evidence submitted in support of the grounds filed and therefore, the order of CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.38,00,000/-. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee fails and are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.