Kiran Anandrao Patil, Kolhapur V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -2, Ichalkaranji

ITA 462/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9427 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.462/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kiran Anandrao Patil C/o Sanjay Vhanbatte and Company, Chartered Accountants, CTS No.245, C/1, First Floor, Mahalaxmi Bank Building, Near Kelavkar Hospital, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003 PAN : AFUPP4535N Vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ichalkaranji Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03-09-2019 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur, in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The first ground raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.8,50,000 representing cash deposit in bank account. Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 31-01-2022 Date of pronouncement 31-01-2022 ITA No.462/PUN/2021 Kiran Anandrao Patil 2 3. Tersely stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.8,50,000 in his bank account. In the absence of any acceptable explanation put forth by the assessee, the AO made the above-said addition as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the cash was deposited out of `Business income‟. Not convinced, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 4. Having heard rival submissions in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee made repayment of loan of Rs.43,95,500 by means of a Demand Draft from his bank account held with Shri Veershaiv Co-operative Bank Ltd. Before making the Demand Draft, the assessee made several cash deposits as well as transfers through cheques, the details of which have been given in para 3.6 of the assessment order. Such amount of deposits totaled upto Rs.44,31,076. The assessee contended that one of the cash deposits, viz., of Rs.8,50,000 was out of `Business receipts‟. In support of such a claim, the assessee filed certain books of accounts. It is worth mentioning that the assessee filed his return of income by offering ITA No.462/PUN/2021 Kiran Anandrao Patil 3 income u/s 44AD and contending that no books were maintained. The entries in Cash Book prepared and submitted by the assessee were found by the AO to be incorrect for the detailed reasons given in the assessment order. The ld. AR could not improve the case of assessee before the Tribunal and candidly accepted that there was no further evidence. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the addition of Rs.8,50,000 has been rightly sustained in the first appeal. 5. The other issue challenged in the appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.19 lakhs on account of unexplained credits. The assessee could not justify creditworthiness of the alleged loan of Rs.19 lakhs purportedly taken from his wife, Mrs. Shubhangi Kiran Patil, despite repeated opportunities given to explain the sources of her income. Eventually, the AO made the addition, which came to be countenanced in the first appeal. 6. Having heard the rival submissions in Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee recorded credit of Rs.19 lakhs in the name of his wife but failed to substantiate creditworthiness of loan creditor before the AO. What to talk of creditworthiness, even no source of income was shown. ITA No.462/PUN/2021 Kiran Anandrao Patil 4 The position remains the same before the Tribunal as well. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition. The impugned order is, ergo, upheld. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31 st January, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 31 st January, 2022 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur 4. 5. The Pr. CIT-2, Kolhapur विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे / DR „SMC‟, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA No.462/PUN/2021 Kiran Anandrao Patil 5 Date 1. Draft dictated on 31-01-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 31-01-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *