SAHEBRAO RAMDAS CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) JALGAON, JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 487/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 August 2024Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to fully explain the source of the investment, the Revenue could not entirely rule out some cash in hand and family savings given the assessee's socio-economic status. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 8 lakhs was deemed just and proper.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 12,41,000 made under Section 69 for unexplained investment in a house property. The assessee claimed to be an agriculturist with sufficient cash receipts, while the Revenue argued the source was not explained.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for unexplained investment in house property was justified, and if so, to what extent, considering the assessee's claim of agricultural income and potential family savings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI,

Hearing: 28.08.2024Pronounced: 30.08.2024

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.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.487/PUN./2024

1.

“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.

3.

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.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any aforesaid grounds of appeal.”

3. 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

4.

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.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →