SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

PDF

ITA 31/AGR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 April 2025Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee, proprietor of M/s. Bharat Veg. Oils Trade Co., filed his return for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) investigated credits aggregating to Rs.91,06,669/- in an account not declared in the return. The AO found escaped income and issued a notice u/s 148. The assessee filed a revised return declaring Rs.4,53,340/-.

Held

The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming an addition of Rs.71,44,045/- out of the total addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. The Tribunal, in this appeal, found that the assessee failed to provide a basis for the opening cash balance and demonstrated a negative cash balance on a subsequent date, indicating an attempt to manipulate the cash book. The Tribunal also noted that the affidavits regarding cash payments for agricultural purchases were not original or notarized and lacked supporting evidence.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in partly confirming the addition of Rs.71,44,045/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 69A of the Act, and whether cash purchases were disallowable u/s 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD.

Sections Cited

250, 148, 147, 143(3), 69, 69A, 40A(3), 6DD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SMT. ANNAPURA GUPTA & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 26.03.2025

ORDER

Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A-3, BhopallT 10924/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals)-3, Bhopal [hereinafter referred to as the "CITAY] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y] 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee's appeal.

Brief facts relating to appeal state that assessee filed his return of 2. income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.4,22,200/-. Assessee stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Veg. Oils Trade Co. It was also stressed that the assessee operated account No. 9028201000000170 in Bank of India in the name of M/s. G.S. Trading Co., proprietor of which was stated to be the assessee. Aforesaid account and its receipts were not mentioned by the assessee in his return. To verify the source of credits aggregating to Rs.91,06,669/- found in the said account, after recording believe, learned Assessing Officer found that income has reasons to escaped assessment for relevant assessment year 2012-13 and after obtaining the sanction from PCIT, Central Bhopal, notice u/s. 148 was issued and served upon the assessee. Reasons recorded were also provided to the assessee during the cOurse of assessment proceedings. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 22.07.2019 declaring income at Rs.4,53,340/-. The difference in the total income was explained to be attributable to the net profit of Rs.31,139/- derived from M/s. Co. Statutory notices were issued and after considering G.S. Trading assessee's detailed submission in respect of aforesaid credits, the break-up of Rs.91,09,669/- was furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Further, details of advance of Rs.5,00,000/- in two parts were also furnished, which are part of the assessment order. The assessee 2|Page basically submitted that he made cash deposits in the financial year 2011-12 in respect of the sale proceeds of business of trading of grains and the source of cash deposited was business receipts. Learned Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee by holding that the pattern of transaction in the bank account do not reflect the nature of business as there are frequent deposits and withdrawals, which are not normaly found in the accounts of traders. Secondly, assessee failed to disclose his account number in his audited financial statement. Concluding that the assessee deliberately concealed the bank account and the cash deposited into the referred account, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee. Assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) who has very 3. exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds 4. "1.Because in any view, the impugned additions confirmed by CIT (A) (Quasi-Judicial Authority) of Rs 71,44,045/-: 3| Page Rs. 5,00,000/- for so called unexplained deposit in Bank of India u/s 69 of the I.T. Act Rs. 57,00,000/ for so called unexplained Cash deposit in Bank Account u/s 69 of the I.T. Act Rs. 9,44,045/- for so called Cash Purchases and disallowable expenditure uls 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the 1.T. Act Rs. 71,44,045/ is grossily arbitrary, highly unjust, unwarranted capricious, wrong. illegal, bad in facts & law.