DCIT, CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SHRI AMEETSINGH A RAJPAL, PUNE

It transpires at the very outset that the Revenue’s identical twin substantive grounds in all the three cases seek to revise section 68 unexplained cash credit addition involving unsecured loans of Rs.2,39,70,864/- , 1,89,08,000/- and Rs. 4,84,66,000/- followed by the latter issue of assessee to cash deposits the tune of Rs. 89,97,340/-, Rs. 27,10,000 and Rs. 4,38,288/- ,assessment year-wise, respectively. The Assessing Officer had invoked section 68 to make both these additions thereby treating the same as unexplained cash credit deposits whereas the ICIT(A) had reversed the assessment finding to this effect.

Mr. Walimbe vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer had rightly made both these additions as the assessee had failed to prove identity, genuineness and credit-worthiness of both unsecured loans received from his brother Shri Gurmeet Ajitsingh Rajpal and similar position continued for cash deposits made in bank accounts. We find that the Revenue’s instant arguments hardly carry any merit. This is for the reason that the Assessing Officer appears to have submitted his detailed remand report dated 2-7-2020 before the CIT(A) that the assessee’s bother Mr. Gurmeet Ajitsingh Rajpal had got recorded their statement way back on 25-3-2015 regarding the impugned unsecured loans, source(s) thereof which were found so factually correct. His findings dealing with this former issue is at pages 75 to 77 in paper book. This is followed by the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion at page 78that the assessee’s cash withdrawals in all these three years were much more than the cash deposits made in the bank account(s). Coupled with this, the assessee appears to have filed cash book as well during lower appellate proceedings whose entries have nowhere been doubted in the Revenue’s pleadings. Faced with this situation, we hold that the Revenue’s instant twin identical substantive grounds do not deserve to be admitted in light of Assessing Officer’s favourable remand report(s) well as foregoing case law. The same stand rejected accordingly.

These Revenue’s three appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.