RAJIBEN RAJA BERA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-NFAC , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1412/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee, while a regular filer, did not provide a cash flow statement or other materials to explain the cash deposits. The Revenue also could not rebut the presumption of accumulated savings, considering the assessee's socio-economic status. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lump sum addition of Rs. 20 lakhs out of the Rs. 25 lakhs in question.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made under section 69A read with section 115BBE for unexplained money. The assessee claimed the deposits represented cash receipts from small businesses, household activities, past withdrawals, and savings. The assessee was a regular taxpayer but had declared small incomes in previous years.

What were the issues?

Correctness of the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Girish Agrawal (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar
For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 04.07.2024Pronounced: 10.07.2024

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi’s Din and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061180783(1) dated 20.02.2024 in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in short (the “Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges from the outset assessee’s sole substantive grievance which arises for our apt adjudication is that of correctness of lower authorities action making section 69A read with section 115BBE unexplained money addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made in course of assessment dated 29.11.2019, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Both the representatives reiterated vehement stands against and in support of impugned addition. Learned counsel submitted that the assessee has been upon carrying out small time multi dimensional business(es) and household activity at home. And that these cash deposits represent her cash receipt and past withdrawals with accumulated savings only. He took us to page No. 32 of the paper book. Wherein the assessee has been stated to be a regular taxpayer right from A.Y. 2011-12 onwards having declared “paltry” taxable income in all these years except A.Y. 2012-13 involving that corresponding amount of Rs. 10,80,384/-.

3.

Learned DR has vehemently supported the impugned addition made by the lower authorities.

4.

We have given our due consideration of foregoing rival submissions and find no reason to accept either parties stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee; who has been a regular filer, has neither placed on record her cash flow statement or any other material on record to explain these cash deposits of Rs. 25 lakhs nor the Revenue could rebut presumption of her having got accumulated some savings in cash. keeping in mind her socio economic status. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that lump sum addition of Rs. 20 lakhs out of that in question of Rs. 25 lakhs, would be just and proper with a rider the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee got relief of Rs. 5 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →