Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herenafter also called ‘the Act’) on 01-06-2021 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 85 days. The assessee has filed a reply stating that there is no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 has taken a suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenges faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country and accordingly extended the time limit for filing of the appeals. I, therefore, condone the delay in filing the instant appeal and admit the same for disposal on merits.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.10.00 lakh.
Tersely stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee debited his bank account with a sum of Rs.10.00 lakh. On being called upon to explain the source of such bank deposits, the assessee submitted that he received a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh from Gajanan Ramlal Bayas; Rs.3.00 lakh from Narendra Gulabsing chandel; and Rs.2.00 lakh from Kadusing Ramlal Bayas. The assessee submitted that the amounts were received through bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that prior to making payments through cheques to the assessee, these three parties had deposited almost similar cash in their respective bank accounts. He, therefore, made addition for the said sum which came to be affirmed in the first appeal.
I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. First of all, I am taking up the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh received from Gajanan Ramlal Bayas through banking channel. This party sold some raw cotton to Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory for a sum of Rs.5,43,740/-.
The sale proceeds were received through cheque by the party on 17-03-2011. A sum of Rs.5.25 lakh was withdrawn on 17/18- 03-2011. On 29-03-2011, the said amount was re-deposited in the bank account. A sum of Rs.5.00 lakh was given as loan to the assessee on 29-03-2011 through banking channel. Copy of bank account of this creditor is available at page 37 of the paper book from where it can be seen that there is credit to the account for a sum of Rs.5,43,740/- with the remarks “Trf.21/1310” by transfer on 17-03-2011. Page 56 of the paper book is a copy of invoice No.24329 dated 13-03-2011 of Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory in the name of this party showing purchase of raw cotton by the latter for a sum of Rs.5,43,740/-. This shows that Gajanan Ramlal Bayas sold raw cotton to Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory for a sum of Rs.5.43 lakh on 13-03-2011 against which payment was received on 17-03-2011 directly into this party’s bank account. Out of such payment, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was withdrawn on the same and next day before advancing loan to the assessee after 10 days, and before that the said sum of Rs.5.00 lakh was re-deposited in the same bank account. It is this amount of redeposit which has been transferred to the assessee by means of banking channel. It, therefore, abundantly shows that the source of loan given by Gajanan Ramlal Bayas to the assessee is clearly ingrained.
Second party is Narendra Gulabsing Chandel from whom the assessee received a loan of Rs.3.00 lakh. This party again sold raw cotton to Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory for a sum of Rs.3,72,224/- and the amount was transferred to the account of this party by Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory. Copy of the invoice of Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory in the name of Narendra Gulabsing Chandel is available at page 55 of the paper book. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- was withdrawn on the same day and the next two days and re- deposited before issuing cheque to the assessee towards a loan of Rs.3.00 lakh. Trail of transactions is clearly proved. Similar is the position regarding the third person Kadusing Ramlal Bayas, who sold raw cotton to Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory on 18-03-2011 for a sum of Rs.1,90,572/-. The amount was deposited by Shriji Ginning & Pressing Factory in his bank account. Cash of Rs.2.00 lakh was withdrawn on 19-03-2011.
Before issuing cheque of Rs.2.00 lakh to the assessee on 30-03-2011, a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh was re-deposited on that very day. On going through the above chain of transactions, it is clearly established that the assessee received loan from these three parties totalling to Rs.10.00 lakh who had clearly established the source in their hands. In that view of the matter, there remains no doubt whatsoever against the genuineness of the transaction. I, therefore, order to delete the addition of Rs.10.00 lakh sustained in the first appeal.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06th May, 2022.