Prashant Vithoba Navale, Solapur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -2(2), Pune

ITA 323/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7063 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Salary income; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148; 132; 142(1); 143(2); 69A; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.323/PUN/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prashant Vithoba Navale At Post Ekhatpur, Taluka – Sangola, Dist – Solapur – 413307 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune PAN : AJUPN2009F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.455/PUN/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sadashiv Nivrutti Navale At Post Ekhatpur, Taluka – Sangola, Dist – Solapur – 413307 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune PAN : AQUPN3361R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 02-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 27-05-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : Out of above two appeals filed by the respective assessees, appeal in ITA No.323/PUN/2019 is directed against the order dated 30.11.2018 of the CIT(A)-12, Pune, relating to assessment year 2012-13 and appeal in ITA No.455/PUN/2019 is directed against the order dated 31.12.2018 of the CIT(A)-12, Pune, relating to assessment year 2013-14. Since identical grounds have been taken by the 2 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 respective assessees in both the appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.323/PUN/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 2. First, we take up ITA No.323/PUN/2019. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted on Sinhagad Technical Education Society, its director Maruti Nivrutti Navale, family members and associates, collectively called as ‘Navale group’. During the post search action, it was found that the assessee along with other members of the Navale family has deposited large amount of cash in various bank accounts. Since for impugned assessment year i.e. 2012-13 no incriminating material was seized, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act due to large cash was deposited in assessee’s bank account by recording as under: “Reasons for reopening the assessment. In the case of M/s Sinhagad Technical Education Society and Shri Maruti Nivruti Navale Group, the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 06/08/2013. The examination of assessee’s savings Bank account statement of account number 3552 at Sangola Urban Co-operative Bank, Sangola, Dist – Solapur (SUCB, Sangola), and other bank accounts for the period F.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 and after careful perusal, it is noticed that Shri Prashant Vithoba Navale has deposited cash in his said saving bank account during the F.Y. 2011-12, on various dates as under: 3 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 Loan account Name of the person holding account Linked to the saving bank account Amount of loan sanctioned Cash Deposits Date Amount HLN-494 Prashant Vithoba Navale 3552 7000000 01/07/2011 385388 29/09/2011 207000 18/11/2011 215493 07/02/2012 500000 16/02/2012 500000 17/02/2012 500000 16/03/2012 500000 18/03/2012 500000 19/03/2012 700000 The source of the said cash deposits in SUCB and other bank accounts amounting to 53,12,900/- for F.Y. 2011-12 can not be explained from the known sources of income of the assessee evident from the return of income filed and other evidences available on record. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax of Rs.53,12,900/- has escaped assessment and hence it is requested to approve the case for reopening of the case u/s 148 of the I T Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2012- 13. Submitted. Sd/- (Bhosale Vitthal Machindra) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune” 3. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 28.03.2016. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 17.05.2016 showing total income of Rs.2,38,510/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, in response to which, the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed various submissions. 4 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 4. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee during the impugned assessment year has made cash deposits of Rs.53,31,980/- on various dates. On being asked by the Assessing Officer to explain the source of such deposits, it was submitted that the same is out of agricultural income of his father’s HUF and he is one of the coparceners of that HUF. It was submitted that though the Savings Bank account was opened in his individual name, however, the transactions in the bank account were made for and on behalf of the HUF. It was also submitted that the deposits are out of agricultural income of the HUF. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee by recording as under: “(i) All the transactions, investments in bank loans and savings accounts have been made in the individual capacity of assessee and not as a Karta of HUF. (ii) No documentary evidences were produced in support of earning of agricultural income by HUF, except confirmation of Karta. (iii) Mere confirmation of Karta of HUF that investments are of his HUF and the same are made out of agricultural income (i.e. exempt under the income tax Act, 1961) of his HUF is not sufficient and corroborative evidence of income earned by HUF and investment made by HUF out of that income. (iv) In respect of claim of assessee that, sale of gold jewellery of HUF to M/s Apte Jewellers, Solapur, the partners of said jewellers in their statement U/s 131 have themselves accepted that no such sale were taken place and those were accommodation entries. (v) If for the sake of arguments, we consider the aforesaid cash deposits are out of agricultural income of respective brother's HUF, in that case following questions arise: a) Why the bank accounts (loan and savings) were opened and operated in individual name of Karta, coparcener(s) of HUF and not of HUF itself? 5 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 b) In the concept of HUF, it is implied that the Karta i.e. Head of HUF is doing the acts for the benefits of all the coparceners / members of that HUF and generally not for the benefit of any other person. c) If anybody earns any income, generally it is presumed that, he / she utilizes the said income / part of income for his own benefits or benefits of own family i.e. wife, son, daughter, etc. However, in all the cases, loans from SUCB had been obtained and the same is utilized to purchase the shares in aforesaid companies and all those shares were ultimately transferred to Mr Maruti Nivrutti Navale. d) The repayment of aforesaid loans was by way of depositing cash, which is claimed to be out of agricultural income of respective brothers (HUF).” 6. Similarly, the claim of agricultural income was also rejected by him in the absence of any credible evidence to his satisfaction. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.53,31,980/- as unexplained cash credit and determined the total income of the assessee to Rs.55,70,490/-. 7. In appeal, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. However, the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and also upheld the addition on merit. 8. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the acts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the legal contention that the assessment should have been made by issuing notice u/s 153C and not by issuing notice u/s 148 as Assessing Officer himself mentioned in the assessment order that the certain documents such as gift deeds are found in the course of search carried at the premises of Sinhagad Technical Educational Society. 6 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the legal contention that the assessment is bad in law in as much as the same must have been completed u/s 153C and not u/s 147, in the light of the fact that the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 is completed u/s153C and that A.Y. 2012-13 falls within the six assessment years preceding the year of invocation of section 153C in the appellants case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to ground No. 1 &2, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 148 and reopening of the assessment for the valid reasons namely, i) Objections raised on the reasons recorded have not been disposed off while under the guise of disposing off the objections Assessing Officer corrected the defects in the reasons recorded. ii) The cash deposits made in the bank belong to Vithoba N Navale (Smaller HUF) of which appellant is a member. Hence no escapement of income from the appellant. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to above ground CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.53,31,980/- towards the cash deposits in Bank A/c as unexplained cash credit without justifying such addition under any of the sections of IT Act 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to above grounds CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of these cash deposits which were made by appellant's HUF namely Shri Vithoba N Navale (smaller HUF)out of its agricultural income. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to above grounds the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of agricultural income of Appellant's HUF incorrectly by holding that the same is not adequate to support the cash deposits in bank. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing did not press ground of appeal No.1 and 2, for which the Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the ground No.1 and 2 are dismissed as ‘not pressed’. The ground No.3 relates to the order of CIT(A) in upholding the validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of 7 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 Bench to paras 3.2 and 3.3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11, which has been followed for assessment year 2013-14. He submitted that although for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 the assessee has not challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer as well as the validity of re-assessment proceedings due to smallness of the amounts, however, for the impugned assessment year, the assessee has challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali (68 SOT 197) and the decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gurpal Singh vs. ITO (159 ITD 797), he submitted that mere cash deposits in the bank account per se are not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that non application of mind in recording reasons does not deserve to be concurred with: i) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) ii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del) iii) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 iv) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 10. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reasons recorded do not seem to indicate reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment: i) Ingram Micro (India) Exports PTE Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors in WP No.2920 of 2016, order dated 04.01.2017 ii) Millind Madhukar Edke vs. ITO in ITA No.648/PUN/2020, order dated 18.01.2023 iii) Shri Inder Jeet vs. ITO in ITA No.2740/Del/2018 and Shri Ashok Kumar vs. ITO in ITA Nos.1384 & 2647/Del/2018, common order dated 03.12.2018 8 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 11. Finally, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case of family members of the assessee namely; Sanjay Sadashiv Navale vs. DCIT vide ITA No.452/PUN/2019 and Sukhdeo Nivrutti Navale vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos.453 & 454/PUN/2019, order dated 31.05.2022 and in the case of Shri Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale vs. DCIT vide ITA No.255/PUN/2019 and Shri Sharad Vithoba Navale vs. DCIT vide ITA No.266/PUN/2019, order dated 25.08.2022 has quashed the re-assessment proceedings under identical circumstances where the assessments were reopened on account of huge deposit of cash amounts. 12. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that when the assessee is only a salaried employee deriving salary income of Rs.2,38,120/- but has deposited huge cash of Rs.53,31,980/- which was found during post search enquiries the Assessing Officer was fully justified in reopening the assessment and the CIT(A) was fully justified in upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings. He submitted that the provisions of section 147 become otiose if the re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated in such type of cases where the assessee made huge cash deposits when he has meager income. He submitted that the various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), he submitted that it is only to be seen that whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the 9 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 material was not a thing to be considered at this stage. It would be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee might also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the ITO after completion of assessment proceedings. He drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations of the decision: “3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 13. He accordingly submitted that the order of CIT(A) is to be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue should be dismissed. 14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer on the basis of post search enquiries / investigation that the assessee has made huge cash deposits in his Savings bank account, has reopened the assessment after recording reasons and after obtaining the prior approval of the competent authority. The reasons of such reopening are already 10 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 reproduced in the preceding paragraph. We find the assessee challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings before the CIT(A), who, following his order for assessment year 2010-11 has upheld the validity of such reopening and the assessee has not challenged the reopening for earlier years due to smallness of the amount. However, for the impugned assessment year, the assessee has challenged such reopening which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) following his order for earlier years. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly, the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary of Rs.2,38,120/- as against which he has made huge cash deposit of Rs.53,31,980/- in his bank account, details of which were found during post search investigation. Accordingly, the AO after recording reasons and after obtaining approval of the competent authority has reopened the assessment. As reproduced earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has held that it is only to be seen as to whether there was prima facie some material, on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. Since, in the instant case, admittedly the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.53,31,980/- but having meager salary income of Rs.2,38,120/-, the Assessing Officer in our opinion has rightly initiated proceedings for reopening of the assessment and the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the same. The various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case especially when the assessee has not challenged such reopening for the preceding years under identical circumstances 11 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 and has accepted the same. Accordingly, the ground No.3 raised by the assessee challenging the re-assessment proceedings is upheld. 15. So far as ground Nos.4 to 6 are concerned, the same relate to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs.53,31,980/- towards cash deposits in bank account as unexplained cash credit. 16. As mentioned earlier, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.53,31,980/- as unexplained investment being the cash deposits in various bank accounts on the ground that the assessee could not explain the source of such deposits in the bank accounts which has been upheld by the CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not bring any material before us so as to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We find the CIT(A) while upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2012-13 has followed his earlier order for assessment year 2010-11 by recording as under: “4.1 I have considered the contentions raised by the appellant. Brief facts are that a search action u/s 132 was conducted on Sinhagad Technical Education Society, its Director Shri Maruti Nivrutti Navale family members and associates, collectively called as Navale Group. During the course of search action it was found that the appellant along with other members of the Navale family deposited large amount of cash in various bank accounts, and thereafter, used these funds to make investments in equity/ preference share in three companies which are Neemco Spinners Ltd., Neemco Investment & Finance Ltd. and Jaishriram Sugar and Agro Products Ltd. All of which are controlled by Shri Maruti Nivrutti Navale. The appellant before the AO submitted that these funds used for investments were out of agricultural income of his father's HUF, where he is a coparcener. Funds were also obtained as loan from Sangola Urban Co-operative Ltd, and sale of Jewellery. 12 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 The AO noted that in respect of sale of jewellery, the jeweler in the statement recorded u/s 131 on 08.10.2013 confirmed that cash was given by the Navale family members against which the jeweler had issued cheque for sale of gold and as such no gold was ever sold by Navale family members. The AO further noted that all the investment/transaction/loans were executed through individual capacity of the family members, where the sources of which was claimed to be from HUF’s agricultural income. However, there was no documentary proof submitted except for confirmation of the Karta, which is not a corroborative evidence to substantiate the sum so deposited. Apart from these, the AO also pointed out that these investment in shares of the companies controlled by Shri M N Navale, were routed between different family members and ultimately transferred to Shri M N Navale by way of executing a gift deed by the family member who were holding these shares to get the benefit of the exclusion clause of section 56(vii)(c). This modus of operandi was adopted to avoid taxation. The alternate plea of the appellant was that the cash deposits in the banks were made by the HUF. Therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated against the HUF entity and not against the appellant. This argument of the appellant does not hold water as the bank account was in the name of the appellant in his individual capacity. The account was not in the name of the HUF. There is no bar on an HUF opening the bank account. This is a lame excuse taken by the appellant out of desperation. There was no intention of the part of the HUF to make these investments in the capacity of the HUF If they wanted to invest in the name of the HUF they could have opened accounts m the name of HUF and routed the money in a straight manner. These arguments now being put forth by the appellant is an afterthought and a desperate bid to avoid tax. Be that as it may, the Assessing Officer examined the agricultural land holding of the Navale family, based on the submissions made by them and after taking into consideration of consumption etc, estimated the total agricultural income of HUF to be no more than Rs. 41.67 lakhs, which is negligible compared to the total investments/cash deposits made by appellant group. No substantial evidence was produced by the appellant to support the-level of agricultural income to generate the amount of cash as claimed from the agricultural activity. The AO, therefore, rejected the arguments of the appellant that investments were made out of agricultural income of the HUF and consequently made addition u/s 68 of Rs.1,25,965/-. Since the cash deposits were made in the bank and the details of these deposits were made available from the bank passbooks, the AO should have made this addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, wrongly invoking section 68 does not alter the basic facts nor does it negate the addition. Accordingly the addition is now considered having been made u/s 69A. 13 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 All the shares purchased in the above mentioned three companies by various members of the Navale family were ultimately transferred to Shri M N Navale. This was an elaborately chalked out modus operandi to use unaccounted funds to invest in shares of the companies of the Navale Group through the family members of Shri M N Navale and transfer them to Shri M N Navale as gifts, so that he can have controlling stake in these companies and avoid taxation by misusing the exemption clause of section 56(vii)(c). The AO, therefore, was right in holding that it was unaccounted money routed through as share application which eventually landed in the hands of Shri M N Navale, taking the advantage of exemption clause of section 56(vii)(c). Thus, all the arguments of the appellant that it was agricultural income of the HUF, which was used for investments was a facade to hide the unaccounted income. The department further corroborated it stand based on the statement recorded u/s 131 of the jeweler i.e Shri Nitin Vasant Apte a partner of M/s Ganesh Ramchadra Apte Jewelers Solapur. Who stated that the appellant family members were giving cash and obtaining cheques to show sale of jewellery, which was nothing but accommodation entries of converting unaccounted money. The appellant further made another claim that the assessee had disclosed salary income of Rs, 1,34,715/- and agricultural income and therefore, the cash deposits in the bank are explained in light of the same. This issue was examined. The appellant has not submitted any evidence to substantiate his claim. Moreover, when this matter is examined in the light of the modus operandi adopted by all the individual members of the family of Navale Group, no credibility can be given to this argument in the absence of any supporting evidence. Furthermore, the appellant is shifting its stand conveniently without offering substantial proof and evidence to explain the cash credits in the bank. Therefore, the arguments of the appellant are rejected. Considering all these aspects, I find no reason to digress from the findings of the AO since the appellant had failed to submit any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claims made. The additions made by the AO are hereby upheld. Grounds raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 17. Since the Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not bring any material before us so as to take a contrary view than the view taken by the CIT(A) on this issue, therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on this issue and ground Nos.4 to 6 raised by the assessee on this issue are dismissed. 14 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 (A.Y. 2013-14) 18. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the legal contention that the assessment is bad in law in as much as the same must have been completed u/s 153C and not u/s 147, in the light of the fact that the assessment for earlier years has been completed u/s 153C and that the year in appeal falls within the six assessment years preceding the year of invocation of section 153C in the appellant's case. 2. On the acts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to ground No.1, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 148 and reopening of the assessment for the valid reasons namely, i. is based on factually incorrect details. ii. does not contain any details of cash deposits of Rs.1,57,06,000/- mentioned therein. iii. is undated and iv. does not record the reasons to form belief for the A.O. regarding escapement of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to ground No.1 the order dated 18/11/2016 passed by the A. O. disposing off the objections raised by the appellant to the reasons for reopening of the assessment is bad in law since the same has been passed with an attempt to correct the defects in the reasons already recorded for reopening the assessment. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to ground No. 1 to 3, the A.O. has erred in passing the order assessing the unexplained cash deposits in the hands of the appellant despite being aware of the fact that those deposits are made by the HUF of which the appellant is a Karta mainly out of the agricultural income of the said HUF. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to Ground No. 1 to 3 above, the A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs.3,10,22,346/- towards cash deposits in bank accounts as "Unexplained Cash Credit" without referring to any of the sections of Income Tax Act under which the said addition is made. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to Ground No. 1 to 3 above, the A. O. has erred in not appreciating the fact that these cash deposits were out of the agricultural income of the appellant's HUF and that the same were made for and on behalf of the said HUF. 15 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to Ground No. 1 to 3 above, the A. O. has erred in estimating the agricultural income of the appellant's HUF incorrectly and holding that the same is not sufficient to justify cash deposits in the banks. 19. After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are identical to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.323/PUN/2019 for assessment year 2012-13. We have already decided the issue and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Following similar reasoning, the above grounds raised by the assessee are also dismissed. 20. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 27 th day of May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 27 th May, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 16 ITA No.323/PUN/2019 ITA No.455/PUN/2019 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 06.05.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 14.05.2024 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order