SHAILESH VISHWANATH RAJE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(3), MUMBAI

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09/03/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the addition of Rs.17 lakhs shown as opening cash balance, rejecting the contention of the assessee and consequent addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

2 Shailesh Vishwanath Raje

balance appearing in the cash book. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. N. Hemalatha, strongly defended the addition by contending that right from assessment stage and till the stage of this Tribunal, the assessee has not produced any evidence explaining the source of cash and merely claim has been made.

are that as per AIR information, the assessee made cash

deposit of Rs.17 lakh in his saving bank account maintained

with Axis Bank. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the same and was further asked whether the cash

deposited in the bank was disclosed in the return of income

filed earlier. The assessee did not produce any evidence but merely claimed that the impugned cash deposit is out of whole saving in cash and was kept at home. The assessee

3 Shailesh Vishwanath Raje

also produced cash book wherein the opening balance was shown at Rs.17,02,559/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer

examined the return of the assessee and found that the only

source of income of the assessee is salary, share of profit

from the firm where the assessee is a partner. The assessee

did not produce any evidence that the cash was withdrawn

from his account or from the firm. In the absence of any plausible explanation, the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition u/s 69A of the Act.

On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeal), identical submissions were made and also filed

written submissions. The Ld. Assessing Officer duly

examined the prayer of the assessee and affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Before this Tribunal also, the assessee took identical

plea by contending that the cash book for Financial Year

2008-09 and 2009-10 clearly reflects the accumulation of cash. However, facts remains that the assessee has not produced any evidence with this fact to source and genuineness of such cash deposit. As per section 69A of the Act, if in any Financial Year, the assessee is found to be 4 Shailesh Vishwanath Raje

owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

articles, whihch is not recorded in the books and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source

of acquisition or if offered which is not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer such may be deemed to be the income of the assessee. In the present appeal, though

the assessee has shown the money in his books but did not explain the source of such cash deposit and its genuineness.

In such a situation, I am of the view that mere claim is not enough, the assessee has to adduce evidence in support of such cash deposit/availability of cash and source thereof,

consequently, I have no option but to affirm the stand taken

in the impugned order. Appeal of the assessee is, therefore,

dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 04/01/2018. (Joginder Singh) "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 04/01/2018 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /"नजी स"चव

5 Shailesh Vishwanath Raje

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.