Mr Apresh Tukaram Khot, Raigad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

ITA 209/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7837 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 147; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.209/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Mr. Apresh Tukaram Khot, Thal Bazar, Thal, Tal- Alibag, Dist. Raigad. Maharashtra. PAN ATJPK8281D vs. The ACIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Akash Kumar For Revenue : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date of Hearing : 12.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059005132(1), dated 22.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Hon’ble CIT-(A)] erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by assessing the total income at Rs.23,29,986/- for A.Y.2013-14. 2 ITA.No.209/PUN./2024 2. The Hon’ble CIT-(A) failed to consider the explanations and submissions offered by the appellant during the course of faceless appellate proceedings. 3. The appellants contend that the Hon’ble CIT-(A) ought not to have framed the impugned order under section 250 is as much as the Hon’ble CIT-(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety. 4. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend any ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.” 3. Both the learned representatives next invited my attention the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making sec.69A addition of Rs.21.30 lakhs as under: “4.1. Grounds of Appeal No.1to5: are pertaining to addition of Rs.21,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.08.2021 u/s 147 of the Act, 1961. The Ld. Assessing Officer mentioned in his order that the appellant has deposited cash in the bank account no.31242062370 maintained with SBI which was jointly held with some other person/s. Before the Assessing Officer, the appellant submitted that the cash deposits are sale proceeds of his business of trading in fish. The Assessing Officer discussed the reply of the appellant in his order and gave reasons for not accepting the same. During the appellate proceeding, the appellant furnished his written submission. The appellant 3 ITA.No.209/PUN./2024 maintained that he is having his own boat and his only expense is of diesel and he is not maintaining books of accounts. Few diesel vouchers are attached by the appellant. I have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the appellant and noticed that the appellant also enclosed copy of ITR and some ledger accounts. Apart from diesel expenses no other evidence was furnished by the appellant. On the basis of documents furnished by the appellant and as per the paper book it is difficult to accept that the appellant is doing any business. The appellant has not furnished copies of sale bills, detail of retails counter etc. The appellant also failed to furnish that such cash deposits are also done in preceding and succeeding year. The cash deposit is also not on daily basis, as if he is doing business he should have deposited the sales on daily basis. Keeping in view of this, the contention of the appellant is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. Thus the Ground Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby dismissed.” This leaves assessee aggrieved. 4. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing in light of assessee’s pleadings that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned unexplained cash deposits addition of Rs.21.30 lakhs despite the fact that he had duly filed the relevant income tax returns as well as ledger accounts etc. to buttress the point that all this 4 ITA.No.209/PUN./2024 represented cash receipts in fishing business. He sought to highlight the fact that the assessee is a resident of Alibagh in Raigadh district having vast coast line and therefore, he had carried-out regular fishing business activity only resulting in this business income. 5. The Revenue’s stand on the other hand strongly supports the impugned addition made in both the learned lower authorities respective orders. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and find no reason to accept the same in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither both the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s stand that he has been carrying out regular fishing activity in light of his income tax return(s) and other evidence on record nor this taxpayer has sufficiently discharged his onus of proving source of these cash deposits as attributable to the foregoing business activity only. Faced with the situation and keeping in mind the assessee’s socio economic status, it is deemed appropriate to partly delete the impugned addition of Rs.21.30 lakhs to a lump sum amount of Rs.6.30 lakhs only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The impugned addition is partly confirmed to the extent of Rs.15 lakhs in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly. 5 ITA.No.209/PUN./2024 No other ground has been raised or pressed before me during the course of hearing. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 16 th April, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.