SAHEBRAO RAMDAS CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) JALGAON, JALGAON
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI,
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal, for the assessment year 2015-
2016 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in
short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060142158(1), dated
25.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s
behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The assessee pleads the following substantive
grounds in the instant appeal :
2 ITA.No.487/PUN./2024
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in
law, Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A) NFAC] is wrong in
confirming the addition of Rs.12.41,000/- u/s.69 as no
source for investment in House Property. 2. The Learned Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A) NFAC]
has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant is
agriculturist having sufficient agricultural produce receipts
in cash and the same is deposited in Bank for further
payment.
The Learned Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A) NFAC]
ought to have considered the details of Source of Income for
cash deposits in Bank account for NEFT/RTGS payment for
House Property.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or
withdraw any aforesaid grounds of appeal.”
Learned DR vehemently argued in support ofboth the
learned lower authorities action making sec.69 addition of
Rs.12,41,000/- representing unexplained investment. He
reiterates the point that the assessee has not been able to
source thereof in both the lower proceedings and therefore, the
impugned addition deserves to be sustained.
3 ITA.No.487/PUN./2024
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
assessee’s foregoing pleadings and Revenue’s vehement
contentions against and in support of the impugned addition.
We find no reason to accept either parties submissions in
entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee on the
one hand has failed to explain source of the impugned addition
amount representing “investment” whereas the department
could hardly rebut the fact that keeping in mind his socio
economic status; atleast some cash in hand and family savings
could not be altogether ruled-out on the other hand. Faced with
this situation, we conclude that a lump sum addition of Rs.8
lakhs only out of that in question of Rs.12,41,000/- would be
just and proper with a rider that the instant estimation shall
not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of
Rs.4,41,000/- in otherwords. Necessary computation shall
follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above
terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.08.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 30th August, 2024
VBP/-
4 ITA.No.487/PUN./2024
Copy to
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
