SUKHADEV BAPURAO KACHARE,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, SANGLI, SANGLI

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

2. Without prejudice to the above ground on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 11,03,860/- u/s 69A- Unexplained money by disregarding the explanation offered by appellant that his amount represents the cash withdrawn from the bank and re-deposited back. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter, amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.” Submission of ld.AR :

2. Ld.Authorised Representative of the Assessee filed paper book. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee is a small time businessman. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has added Rs.11,03,856/- u/sec.69A of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that Assessee had obtained Loan from Canara Bank for Purchase of Machinery of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said Loan was disbursed by the bank on 24/10/2016. The Assessee withdrew the said amount in cash from the Bank. But before the assessee could purchase machinery, there was demonetization. Hence, assessee deposited entire amount in his Bank account. All these facts are clearly visible in the Bank statement. Ld.CIT(A) has also reproduced the same. But Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on the ground that in the statement cash withdrawal is not seen , this is erroneous 2 findings as in the bank statement it is clearly seen. Ld.AR took us through the bank statement. Ld.AR has submitted that the remaining amount of Rs.1,03,856/- was sourced from accumulated saving. Ld.AR submitted that hence addition may be deleted.

Submission of Ld. DR : 3. Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and ld.CIT(A). However, on our specific query, Ld.DR accepted that the cash withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000/- is seen in the Bank Statement of Account Number 0860101040423 on 24/10/2016. Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The assessee had not filed return of Income u/sec.139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received information on AIMS Portal of the Income tax Department that the assessee had deposited cash in his bank account during the year. Hence, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.142 asking the assessee to file the return of income. Then, AO issued another notice and show cause notice. The assessee failed to comply. Hence, Assessment Order was passed u/sec.144 of the Act assessing the income of the assessee at 3 Rs.11,03,860/-which was the Total amount of cash deposited by the assessee in his two accounts maintained with Canara Bank during the year. The Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Assessee filed documentary evidence which was admitted by Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) obtained a report of the AO on the documents filed by the Assessee. Then Ld.CIT(A) narrated facts in para 8.2 of his order and concluded that Cash Withdrawal are not seen in the Bank account as claimed by the assessee and upheld the Addition. Thus, Ld.CIT(A) has upheld only on one ground that cash withdrawal not reflected in the Bank statement. However, this fact mentioned by the Ld.CIT(A) is wrong. We have perused the Bank statement of the Assessee of Account No.0860101040423. It is observed in the Bank statement that Assessee received Loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from Bank on 24/10/2016 and on 24/10/2016 he withdrew entire Rs.10,00,000/- in cash. The assessee submitted that same amount was deposited in bank due to demonetization as assessee could not purchase the machinery due to some reasons.Ld.AR has submitted that the remaining amount of Rs.1,03,856/- was sourced from accumulated saving. It is also 4 observed from the document of Bank that Assessee has repaid the loan taken on 24.10.2016 immediately after depositing the cash. This fact is accepted by Assessing Officer in the Remand Report dated 26.02.2024 filed to ld.CIT(A). We agree with the submission of the Assessee that the cash withdrawn on 24/10/2016 was re-deposited in bank. The time gap between the deposits and withdrawal is very short. We agree with the assessee that it was a festival period and the assessee could not purchase the machinery due to some reason. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that assessee had explained the source of cash deposits made by him. The primary onus is on assessee but once the primary onus is fulfilled by the assessee the onus shifts to department. The Revenue has not brought any fact on record to rebut it. Hence, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.11,03,856/- made u/s 69A of the Act.