SAJU ETTUNGAL PAPPU ,CHOWARA,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

It emerged at the outset with the able assistance coming from both parties that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance herein seeks to reverse both lower authorities action making s. 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.23,09,500/- Saju Ettungal Pappu. representing cash deposits made during demonetisation period. Learned counsel reiterates the assessee’s stand adopted throughout that these cash deposits represent his business sale only. He has further filed record of cash balance in his hand during the relevant previous year and before the demonetisation period. The Revenue, on the other hand, draws strong support from both the lower authorities action making the impugned addition not only on the ground that the assessee could have accepted the cash in his regular business activities but also that he failed to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the course of assessment as well as in the lower appellate proceedings.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival contentions, find no reason to accept the same either of them in entirety. This is for the pure reason that there is no rebuttal from department’s side about the cash balances in assessee’s hands during the relevant period. The fact also remains that the assessee has not been able to plead all the relevant facts in this regard either before the Assessing Officer or before or in the lower appellate proceedings. Faced with this situation, we deem it proper in larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.16.09 lakhs out of Rs.23.09 lakhs would meet the end of justice. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 7,00,000/-, in other words, subject to a rider that our instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent since based on the peculiar facts and

The assessee’s next grievance before us is regarding the personal expenditure disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/-. We note from the factual position that the assessee was not able to plead ad prove the relevant facts before both the lower proceedings. We, thus treat it a fit case to restrict the impugned addition to 75,000/- only in very terms. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 75,000/-. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Sd/- Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin ; Dated : 12th August, 2023. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Concerned. 4. The CIT Concerned. 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 6. Guard File.