Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1055275319(1), dated 21.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
2 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023
“Learned CIT erred by invoking section 69A, as the there is no unexplained money, since sized cash is reflected in the in the cash book, and nature of business i.e., cash sales is totally
ignored. 2. Learned CIT erred in passing order that no bills and vouchers submitted despite ignoring fact ample submission of bills and vouchers. 3. Learned CIT erred in passing the order U/S 143(3) by dismissing the all grounds of appeal of raised by the appellant without giving sufficient opportunity being heard. 4. Because the Assessee denies the tax liabilities since Id, assessing officer passed the order u/s 143(3) and u/s 250 are bad in law as well as facts and liable to be annulled. 5. The Assessee craves leave to add/alter any grounds of appeal or before the date of final hearing.”
3. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion upholding the impugned addition of Rs.50 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment dated 30.09.2021, reading as under :
3 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023 4 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023 5 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023 6 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023 7 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023 8 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023
Learned counsel representing the assessee vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned sec.69A unexplained cash addition in his hands thereby not giving credit of the corresponding cash-in-hand figures in his cash book.
The Revenue has strongly supported the learned CIT(A)'s detailed discussion hereinabove confirming the impugned addition in assessee’s hands.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the learned counsel’s vehement rival submissions and perused the assessee’s detailed paper book. Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute between the parties that this assessee was nabbed by the police authorities at Hyderabad on 26.11.2018 with cash of Rs.50 lakhs found in his possession. And that the same led to his sec.131 statement recorded by the learned departmental authorities wherein he claimed to have realized the foregoing cash as regular business receipts from customer(s) in Mumbai. Learned counsel could not dispute the clinching fact that no such list of the corresponding customers
9 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023 has seen light of the day right from 26.11.2018 till date.
Coupled with this, the assessee appears to have submitted his final submissions on 26.09.2021 before the learned Assessing Officer at Kolhapur neither proving his stand adopted throughout nor attributing source of the cash found to the alleged cash in hand figures in the cash book. It is in these peculiar facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee’s foregoing sole argument does not deserve to be accepted before us without any corroboratory evidence.
Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decisions in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) has already settled the issue long back that any explanation/evidence filed in income tax proceedings has to be considered in light of the human probabilities thereby removing all blinkers. We wish to reiterate here before parting that the assessee allegedly carries his business in Mumbai, assessed at Kolhapur and was found with the impugned cash of Rs.50 lakhs in his possession in Telangana, which he fails to explain in the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove. We see no merit in his arguments. The impugned addition is confirmed in very terms.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
10 ITA.No.1241/PUN./2023
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.05.2024.