MAHESH,GURGAON vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, GURGAON

Delay of 1269 and 1389 days in filing of the instant twin appeals is condoned as per the assessee’s condonation averments and keeping in mind the fact that the same also include time period from 15.3.2020 to 19.10.2020 , which has already been directed to be excluded for all purposes by the hon’ble apex court in its land mark decision in Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, In re. (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

I now proceed to deal with the relevant facts wherein the assessee is aggrieved in quantum appeal that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in taking recourse to section 148/147 proceedings, thereby treating cash deposits of Rs. 8,00,000/- deposited in his bank account as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. The penalty appeal 271D penalty of Rs. 9.50 lakhs on the ground that he had violated section 269SS of the Act in accepting cash loans.

Both the parties could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the entire issue has arisen on account of the assessee having claimed to have availed cash loans of Rs. 17.50 lakhs from one Shri Bhoop singh. There is no denial to the fact that the said person had duly put in appearance during scrutiny and deposed in assessee’s favour to have given the entire amount of Rs. 17.50 lakhs, which stood restricted to Rs. 9.5 lakhs only on the ground that his share in the sale deed could prove only 9.5 lakhs. I note in this factual backdrop that the said person had co-executed the sale document and both of them received cash sale consideration amounting to Rs. 17.50 lakhs, which in turn, was stated to be given to his relative i.e. the assessee. All these facts sufficiently indicate that both the lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s foregoing explanation going by the said relative’s share only than the entire explanation which had to be considered in the light of given probabilities and the relation between the parties. I, thus, see no reason to sustain the impugned addition of Rs. 8 lakhs in assessee’s quantum appeal ITA no. 121/Del/2023. This appeal succeeds in very terms.

Coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal 271D penalty of Rs. 9.5 lakhs representing cash loans from one Shri Bhoop singh, I find that the same represents cash sale consideration and, therefore, it would not attract violation of section 269SS of the Act, deleted accordingly. This appeal is accepted.