ASHWINKUMAR UTTAM NALAWADE,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SATARA, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1237/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 March 2024Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the cash deposits were made on the same day as property sale, the assessee failed to provide supporting documents for the deposits. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was confirmed, granting relief of Rs. 15 lakhs.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 concerns an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs made on account of cash deposits. The cash deposits were made on the same day the assessee executed transfer deeds for immovable property.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made on the same day as property sale can be treated as sale consideration without supporting evidence. The extent of unexplained cash deposits to be added to income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 05.03.2024Pronounced: 05.03.2024

1 ITA.No.1237/PUN./2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1237/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Ashwinkumar Uttam The Income Tax Officer, Nalawade, 135, Vaibhav Ward-1, 531A/2, Sadarbazar, Residency, Somwar Peth, Opp. Science College, vs. Karad, Satara – 415 110 Manjunath Manor, Maharashtra. Satara – 416 416 PAN AIIPN1418M Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Smt. Deepa Khare For Revenue : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054471172(1), dated 20.07.2023, involving proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that there is hardly much a need for this tribunal to deal with the relevant factual matrix at length so far as the sole substantive issue of cash deposits addition of Rs.20 lakhs added as unexplained in assessee’s hands in both the learned lower authorities order(s), is concerned. This is for the precise 2 ITA.No.1237/PUN./2023 reason that the learned assessing authority itself has made it clear that the assessee had executed transfer deed(s) of his immovable property(ies) in the relevant previous year i.e., 08.03.2010. It is informed that the cash deposits had also been made on the same crucial day. That being the case, the necessary presumption which arises is only that the impugned cash deposits per se form part of sale consideration only in light of this tribunal’s landmark decision in Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. The ITO [1994] 48 TTJ 295 (Bom.) (TM). The fact also remains that the assessee has not been able to file even the corresponding agreement clause(s) in respect of the impugned cash deposits. Faced with the situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.5 lakhs only out of Rs.20 lakhs in question deserves to be confirmed, with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.15 lakhs in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

3.

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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →