PUSHPA SUNIL DEVIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(4), NAGPUR

The assessee has raised eight grounds of appeal, but all are against the addition of ₹ 47,76,500/- made by the Ld.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that source of the alleged cash deposits are from sale of self-owned gold jewellery accumulated over the years 1990- 2010 and that the sale proceeds received, has been deposited in the bank account and thereafter investment has been made for purchase of immovable property. He also submitted that assessee has all relevant details to prove the genuineness of sale of gold jewellery and that the assessee is eligible for exemption/ deduction u/s. 54F of the Act for the investment in residential house. Request made to afford one more opportunity to furnish these details before the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for necessary verification.

On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A).

I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that assessee is an individual and based on the information about transaction in immovable property and cash deposits in the bank account, assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 were initiated after validly serving statutory notices. No regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act has been filed. In compliance to notice u/s. 3 ITA.No.717/NAG/2025 (Pushpa Sunil Devikar) 148 of the Act, assessee furnished return of income on 26.11.2022 declaring income of ₹ 1,89,980/-. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, Ld.AO asked the assessee about the source of cash deposits of ₹ 47,76,500/-, to which it was submitted that source is from sale of self-owned gold jewellery held by the assessee for the past many years. However, in the absence of relevant details, the Ld.AO did not accept the submissions. Before the appellate authority also, assessee failed to get any relief as the documents filed by the assessee were not sufficient to prove the source of cash deposits. Also assessee could not produce the copies of sale or purchase bills of the jewellery. Now, before this Tribunal, learned counsel for the assessee has stated that assessee has been purchasing gold jewellery since 1990-2010 with the anticipation of good returns. Gold jewellery has been sold in parts and the cash received therefrom has been deposited in the bank account and thereafter investment has been made for purchase of immovable property at ₹ 24,00,000/-. It is also claimed that assessee deserves the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act for the investment in immovable property out of consideration received from sale of capital asset other than residential house.