MOHAMMED FARAAZ DOSANI, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2221/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6264 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift
• Section: 68; 143(2)

Judgement Text

Page | 1 ITA No.2221/Mum/2023 Mohammed Faraaz Dosani Vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2221/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Mohammed FaraazDosani Flat no. 901/902 9 th Floor Alraza Apartment, Cyrus Avenue Road Agripada Mumbai – 400008 Vs. Income Tax Officer- 20(2)(2) Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug – 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: CGRPD8345N Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Rajesh Shah Respondent by : Ajay Singh Date of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 18.04.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: This Appeal is against the Order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and relates to Assessment Year 2017-2018. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both the lower authorities erred in facts and in law in making an addition of the sum of Rs. 26,50,000/- asunexplained cash credit wherein source of cash deposit were explained and cash book were submitted vide letter dt. 24.12.2019. The Appellant submits the disallowance is unjustified because no valid satisfaction recorded by either of the lower authorities, and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Page | 2 ITA No.2221/Mum/2023 Mohammed Faraaz Dosani Vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(2) The appellant submits that no disallowance can be made in the absence of a valid reason for disagreeing with the appellant's contention. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the provisions of law, the appellant submits that the disallowance is unjustified and the same required to be deleted. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend, the above Grounds of Appeal as and when advised.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.369,080/- was filed on 30.07.2017. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2018. The assesse is del-creder commission agent for fishermen at bhavcha –Dhakka, Mazgaon. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assessee has deposited cash to the amount of Rs.31,50,000/- during the demonetization period. On query, the assessee explained that there was cash sales to the amount of Rs.28,00,000/- in the Month of October, 2016 and he has also received gift of Rs.15,00,000/- from his father as per the gift deed 31.03.2016. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and treated amount of Rs.31,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The assesse filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Regarding addition of Rs.31,50,000/-on account of cash deposit in the bank account the ld. Counsel submitted that during the month of November the total cash sale of the assessee was Rs.10,30,210/- and assessee has also made withdrawal of cash amount from the bank account to the amount of Rs.28,00,000/- between 17.10.2016 to 26.10.2016 and the total sale of the assesse during the year was to the amount of Rs.375,88,390/-. We have perused the copy of bank Page | 3 ITA No.2221/Mum/2023 Mohammed Faraaz Dosani Vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(2) statement maintained by the assessee with the Union Bank of India and Kotak Bank and notice that between 01.10.2016 to 30.11.2016 there was cash withdrawal of Rs.28,00,000/- and cash deposit of Rs.31,50,000/- as per the detail given below: In addition to above the assessee has also provided copy of cash book for the period 01.10.2016 to 30.11.2016 and for the year ended 31.03.2016 showing sale amount of different dates and the amount deposited and withdrawn from the bank account. The assessee has also filed copy of gift deed in respect of receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- from his father Mr. Abdul Aziz Hazi LatifDoshani along with evidences of the income of his father which was offered before the settlement commission. After perusal of the material placed in the record, we find that assessee has demonstrated from the copies of bank statements, copies of cash book and copies of P & L account balance sheet, statement of income about the source of cash deposited in the bank account. All the document mentioned above placed in the paper book were also filed before the lower authorities and no contrary material was brought on record by the assessing officer to disprove the documentary evidence filed by the assessee therefore, we consider that Page | 4 ITA No.2221/Mum/2023 Mohammed Faraaz Dosani Vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(2) the decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the impugned decision is not justified. Therefore, ground of appeal of the assesse are allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.10.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (KuldipSingh) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 23.10.2023 Rohit: PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविवनवध, आयकर अपीलीय अवधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.