Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R. & Shri Samir Vora, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2022 O R D E R
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. CIT-(Appeals), Gandhinagar on 09.03.2020 for A.Y. 2016-17.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 9-3-2020 by CIT(A)-GNR, A’bad. Upholding the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- being cash deposited in Bank account as unexplained moneys u/s 69A is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- being cash deposited in Bank account as unexplained moneys u/s 69A. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- being cash deposited in Bank account as unexplained moneys u/s 69A.
Babubhai Purshottamdas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 - 2 - 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciated that there was no shifting of stands and the appellant had fully discharged the burden to prove source of moneys deposited in bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that considering the advanced age, pensionable life and purpose of cash deposit etc. the explanation offered by the appellant ought to have been held as satisfactory. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned addition was highly excessive and calls for reduction.”
The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 belated on 31.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,21,440/- with salary income of Rs. 2,21,444/- and saving bank account interest of Rs. 1,334/-. The Assessing Officer observed that there was a cash deposits during the demonetization period in assessee’s account to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The assessee filed bank statement of all bank accounts for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 as well as agricultural land and agricultural produce related to documents by 7/12 agricultural produce sale bill. The assessee also filed confirmation statement, identity proof and agricultural land holding proof 7/12 from Shaileshkumar P Patel in support of claim of receipt of money as per cash book. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- as an unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the confirmation of Shaileshkumar P Patel was hand written and at this juncture cannot be filed before us. Therefore, it should be taken that the affidavit of assessee’s son stating
Babubhai Purshottamdas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 - 3 - that Shaileshkumar P Patel has given the said amount to be taken into account. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that in respect of various parties some of the parties have filed confirmation related to the cash which is below 20,000/-. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is not in a position to present all the confirmations at this juncture as the assessee is salaried person (Pensioner) and is very old.
5. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is a delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed submissions explaining delay occurred due to Covid period. Hence, delay is condoned. From the perusal of the assessee’s / A.R.’s submissions before us it appears that the confirmation related to Shaileshkumar P Patel was filed during the assessment proceedings and the same was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer being in hand writing of the said person. There is an observation that the assessee has return the loan to Shaileshkumar P Patel to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/- but the details were not supported by any evidence as such. But the fact that assessee has given the bank statement as well as the confirmation statement identity proof and agricultural land holding of Shaileshkumar P Patel to prove that the said Shailesh Patel had adequate means to loan Rs. 7,00,000/- in cash established the fact that the assessee has received the said amount. From the perusal of cash books the assessee has demonstrated before us that on date Shailesh Patel
Babubhai Purshottamdas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 - 4 - has given the amount to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 18,500/- and various other parties has given the cash during the demonetization period which is below 20,000/-. The assessee has filed affidavit of those parties but the concurrent evidence is not there, therefore the addition made by the CIT(A) is restricted to 50% of the addition. This direction should not be taken as precedent in any other cases.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 16/12/2022