BALASAHEB SOPAN YELWANDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 59/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained investment as it was disclosed in the balance sheet. The addition for cash payment was deleted due to lack of justification. The addition for unexplained cash deposits was re-computed to a lump sum amount.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order related to assessment year 2015-16, which included additions for unexplained investment, cash payment, and unexplained cash deposits. The appeal concerned proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether additions for unexplained investment, cash payment, and cash deposits are justified. The primary issue is the validity of these additions based on the disclosed information and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 23.04.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1055751821(1), dated 05.09.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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

2 ITA.No.59/PUN./2024

3.

The first and foremost issue herein is that of sec.69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.9,90,000/- alleged to have been made by the assessee in the relevant previous year.

There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had indeed made the impugned investment which was duly disclosed in the balance-sheet. This being the clinching fact, learned DR could hardly dispute that sec.69 herein would not come into play once the assessee had duly recorded the said land purchase in his balance-sheet in the relevant previous

3 ITA.No.59/PUN./2024 year. The impugned addition is deleted for this precise reason alone.

4.

Next comes the second issue of cash payment addition of Rs.10 lakhs made in assessee’s hands on the ground that he had made on-money payment to his corresponding vendor(s). The relevant facts of the instant issue appears little bit confusing as per Assessing Officer’s assessment discussion dated 15.02.2022 wherein the learned departmental authorities appears to have conducted their enquiries from one Shri Nitin G Shelke who had deposited Rs.30 lakhs belonging to Shri Ganesh Sabale and Shri Ramesh Sabale. These latter people happen to be the assessee’s vendor(s). It is on the basis of this crucial link that both the learned lower authorities have concluded the relevant facts emanating from the foregoing enquiry to make the impugned addition in assessee’s hands. The Revenue vehemently supported the same during the course of hearing. I find in this factual backdrop that there is hardly any justification to make the impugned addition once the assessee’s vendor(s) have not even deposited the cash amount in their own bank account(s). The same stands deleted in very terms.

5.

Lastly comes the assessee’s very substantive grounds seeking to delete unexplained cash deposit(s) addition

4 ITA.No.59/PUN./2024 of Rs.3 lakhs made by both the learned lower authorities. It emerges that neither the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the source of the impugned cash deposit(s) nor the department has given the benefit of his socio-economic status vis-à-vis past savings. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to re-compute the impugned addition of Rs.3 lakhs to a lump sum amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in other case(s). The assessee gets relief of Rs.1,50,000/- in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

6.

Delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →