YOGESHPRASAD A. JAISWAL,AURAMGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMRAVATI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi’s order dated 31.03.2022 passed in case no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1042276582(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits of Rs.14,51,150/- as unexplained, it emerges at the outset with the able assistance of learned counsel(s) that his stands all along had attributed the same to cash loans 8 family members/relatives, namely, S/Shri Sawan Gokulprasad Jaiswal, Akash Nandlal Jaiswal, Alkesh Ambikaprasad Jaiswal, Ashok Jaglal Jaiswal, Ghanshyam Madanlal Jaiswal, Madanlal Jaglal Jaiswal, Pankaj Ashoklal Jaiswal and Ambikaprasad Jaiswal, involving varying sums. The Revenue’s vehement argument during the course of hearing is that the assessee could not prove genuineness/creditworthiness of the said varying cash loans along with the source of all his family members. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stands and find no reason to express my agreement with the either parties’ contentions in entirety. This is for the reason that neither the assessee has been able to prove the impugned cash loans from his family members by filing all the relevant supportive details nor the department could dispute that even possibility of past savings cash in hand such small amounts from family members could not be ruled out per se. Faced with this situation, this tribunal deems it appropriate to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.14,51,150/- to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- only with the rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. Next comes the latter addition of Rs.5,60,000/-. There is hardly any dispute that both the learned lower authorities have made the impugned addition on account of violation of section 269SS and