What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.2,05,699/- as unexplained money. The assessee failed to substantiate the source of this amount, and the cash book presented was considered an eyewash.

The assessee purchased land for Rs.16,05,669/-. She claimed the investment was sourced from an advance received and cash in hand of Rs.2,05,699/-. The AO treated the entire investment as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash in hand claimed by the assessee was a valid source for the investment, and if the assessee had sufficiently substantiated it.

Shrimati Neha Luliya vs ACIT | ITAT Raipur 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &, Smt. Laxmi Sharma, CAs

For Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 10.11.2022Pronounced: 21.12.2022

आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-I, Raipur dated 01.07.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2015 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,05,699/- made by ld. AO on account of unexplained money. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.”

Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass i.e., sustainability of the addition of Rs.2,05,699/- upheld by the CIT(Appeals).

Shorn of unnecessary details, the assessee during the year under consideration had purchased land at Tatibandh, Raipur for Rs.16,05,669/-. On being queried, it was the claim of the assessee that the aforesaid investment was sourced out of, viz. (i) advance received against agreement for sale of plot at Kota : Rs.14 lacs; and (ii) out of cash in hand of Rs.2,05,699/-. As the assessee had failed to 3 Shrimati Neha Luliya Vs. ACIT, CC- substantiate the source of the aforesaid investments, therefore, the A.O held the entire amount of investment as having been made by the assessee out of her unexplained money.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Although the CIT(Appeals) vacated the addition of Rs.14 lac (supra) but upheld the balance addition of Rs.2,05,699/- (supra).

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me.

I have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record.

Although, it is the claim of the Ld. AR that the balance investment of Rs.2,05,669/- towards purchase of the land in question was made out of the cash in hand that was available with the assessee at the relevant point of time, but I find no substance in the said contention. I, say so, for the reason that neither there is any such material available on record nor brought to my notice by the Ld. AR, which would irrefutably substantiate to the hilt the veracity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee as regards the source of the investment under consideration. In so far the cash book for the year

4 Shrimati Neha Luliya Vs. ACIT, CC- that had been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to support his aforesaid claim, I am of the considered view that the same is nothing better than an eye wash, which had been complied on the basis of unsubstantiated facts to show the availability of cash in hand out of which the balance investment made by the assessee was sourced. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities who had rightly rejected the claim of the assessee qua the source of investment of Rs.2,05,699/- (supra), I uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.

Ground of appeal No.2 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.

Order pronounced in open court on 21st day of December, 2022.

SHRIMATI NEHA LULIYA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments