Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1384/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Ramesh Laxman The Income Tax Officer, Shinde, 670, Chafe Chafe, Ward 1 2, New Central Ratnagiri – 415 612. Revenue Bldg., 2nd Floor, Jail vs. Maharashtra. Road, Ratnagiri. PAN BDEPS4385L Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S. Shingte For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1058118723(1), dated 21.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 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 :
“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C1T(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of Rs. 26,43,500/- not 2 ITA.No.1384/PUN./2023 accepting the justification of the appellant explaining the availability of cash with him for deposits during demonetization.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the additions by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,24,532/- estimated @10% of deposits (other than cash) in bank accounts during the year.
The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
3. Both the learned representatives next invited my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE addition of Rs.26,43,500/- as unexplained money and further assessing credit entries in his books of account of Rs.32,45,323/- @ 10% estimation, coming to Rs.3,24,532/-; respectively.
4. Learned counsel is fair enough at the outset in not pressing for the assessee’s foregoing latter substantive ground (supra). Rejected accordingly.
5. Now comes the sole surviving issue of correctness of sec.69A unexplained money addition of Rs.26,43,500/- representing cash deposited during demonetization period.
3 ITA.No.1384/PUN./2023 Learned counsel vehemently argued that the said cash deposits in fact represent assessee’s cash receipts in regular course of business activity since both the lower authorities have already invoked sec.44AB regarding the latter head herein. He thus raised an identical plea that even if the assessee is held to have not been able to prove source of these cash deposits, as a worst case, these sums represent his business receipts only.
The Revenue has drawn strong support from both the learned lower authorities action making the impugned addition.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and find no reason to uphold the impugned addition of Rs.26,43,500/- in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee on the one hand has not been able to prove all the relevant facts by way of cogent evidence that the same represents his cash receipts in regular course of business whereas the learned lower authorities have also not been able to dispute his regular business activity wherein such receipts could not be altogether ruled out. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that a lump sum addition of Rs.16,43,500/- deserves to be deleted and the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- only is to be upheld by way of estimation.
4 ITA.No.1384/PUN./2023 Ordered accordingly with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any case. The assessee gets relief of Rs.16,43,500/- in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.04.2024.