MOHAMMAD LAL PASHA,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 18/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 June 2024AY 2019-20Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the source of the cash deposit. The evidence presented, such as bank statements, was not considered adequate to support the large cash amount.

What were the facts?

Cash of Rs. 1.20 crore was found with an individual who claimed it belonged to the assessee, a Tendu Patta contractor, for payments to gatherers. A search warrant was executed on the assessee based on this information.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposit is sustainable when the assessee claims it is for business purposes but fails to provide adequate evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Hearing: 13/06/2024

Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 2.12.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad, relating to A.Y.2019-20.

2.

The assessee raised the following grounds: “

1.

1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.14,25,000/- u/s 69A of the I.T.

Act, 1961. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed evidence in the form of bank statement in support of the sources for the cash deposit. 3. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y 2019-20 on 23.07.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.3,36,990/-. Information was received from the Police Authorities, Sironcha Police Station, Gadchiroli District that cash of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was found in the possession of Sri Sanjan Gangaram Awathare along with his driver on 2.6.2020 and he was not having any supporting documents to establish the source of the cash. Sri Sanjay Gangaram Awathare stated that he is working for Shri Mohd. Bashu Miya who is Tendu Patta Contractor. He further stated that the cash being carried in the vehicle belongs to Shri Mohd. Bashu Miya for making payment to Tendu Patta gatherers in the contract areas of Bhamragarh, Gadchiroli for various Gram Sabhas and their villages. Based on the above information, a warrant of authorization u/s 132A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was executed on Shri Mohd. Bashu Miya and Shri Sri Sanjay Gangaram Awathare on 26.06.2020. On verification of the agreement by the DDIT (Inv.) Nagpur, it was found only the name of Shri Mohd.Bashu Miya is appearing in the agreements. Shri Sanjay Gangaram Awathare furnished the statement of cash withdrawal from Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd by 5 persons amounting to Rs.1.10 crore from December, 2019 to March, 2020 and as per the list submitted by Sri Sanjay

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →