Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
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.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
2 ITA.No.59/PUN./2024
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.
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.
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.
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.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.