SHRI RAM BABULAL YADAV , NAGPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -1(4), NAGPUR

ITA 402/NAG/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Ram Babulal Yadav, who appealed against the addition of Rs.9,13,000 to his income, which was classified as unexplained cash deposits by the tax authorities. The primary contention was whether these deposits were part of his business sales turnover or had other legitimate sources. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the source of these deposits, leading to the confirmation of the addition by both lower authorities and the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 133443 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2017
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1069] 72 ITR 194
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income
• Section: 72

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Ɋायपीठ नागपुर मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.402/NAG/2017 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Ram Babulal Yadav, Shatayu Hospital Complx, Wardha Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur – 440010. PAN: AANPY 6192 L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Nagpur. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri G.J.Ninawe – DR Date of hearing 16/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 10/01/2023 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Nagpur’s dated 03.11.2016 in case no.CIT(A)-1/289/2015-16, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. ITA No.402/NAG/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Ram Babulal Yadav [A] 2 2. We have noted with the able assistance coming from the Revenue site that the assessee has raised his sole substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action adding alleged unexplained cash credits of Rs.9,13,000/- in issue. And that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under: “5. However, appellant’s submissions for addition of Rs.9,13,000/- made in respect of unexplained cash deposits are not found acceptable stating them to be covered in sales of Rs.36,59,060/-. As per appellant’s own submissions and admissions, while explaining source of cash deposits of Rs.15,50,000/-, cash deposits from father, wife, friends totaling Rs.10,06,000/- have been made in his bank account. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the appellant in support of these deposits. These deposits are not stated to be out of sale proceeds from appellant’s business, as contended by the appellant in appeal. Even in appeal and remand proceedings, the appellant has failed miserably to satisfactorily explain the source of these cash deposits in his bank account. The appellant has failed to establish that these deposits are referable to his business income. Rather, they are stated to have been received from family members and friends by the appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1069] 72 ITR 194 observed that where there is an unexplained credit, it is open to the AO to hold that it is income of the assessee, and no further burdn lies on the AO to show that the income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represents income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed. There is nothing in law which prevents the AO in an appropriate case in taxing both the sundry credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained and the business income been estimated by ITA No.402/NAG/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Ram Babulal Yadav [A] 3 him in absence of books of account of the appellant. Keeping in view facts of the case and appellant’s submissions, addition of Rs.9,13,000/- made for unexplained cash deposits is, hereby, confirmed.” 3. Suffice to say, it is noted that not only the assessee had failed to explain source of the impugned unexplained cash deposits before the lower authorities who also he could not prove the live nexus that the same formed part of the sales turnover of Rs.36,59,060/- in issue. 4. Faced with the situation, we hardly see any reason to reverse the impugned addition. The CIT(A)’s foregoing detailed findings are upheld therefore. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 th January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 10 th Jan, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, नागपुर बᱶच, नागपुर / DR, ITAT, Bench, Nagpur. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.