Parag Prabhakar Barole, Jalgaon V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Jalgaon

ITA 636/PUN/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8547 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 636/PUN/2022 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Parag Prabhakar Borole, Gat No.7519, Khwajamiya Road, Chaitanya Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001 Maharashtra PAN : AAPPB2670L Vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Jalgaon Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 30-06-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act.) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account u/s.69A of the Act. Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 10-11-2022 Date of pronouncement 14-11-2022 ITA No. 636/PUN/2022 Parag Prabhakar Borole 2 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Director in M/s.Orbit Infopark Private Limited. A return was filed declaring total income at Rs.10,68,520/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.15,77,500/- in his SBI Home Loan Account on 12-11-2016. On being called upon to explain the source of the amount, the assessee placed on record details of certain withdrawals made from the bank accounts maintained by him with SBI, HDFC, SBI Home Loan etc. totalling to Rs.15,45,500/-. He submitted that cash was withdrawn from bank accounts for construction of his residential house and such cash earlier withdrawn was re-deposited. The assessee gave details of such cash withdrawn on various dates from 29-11-2016 to 11-11-2016, which was re-deposited in SBI Home Loan account on 12-11-2016. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention regarding three sums withdrawn on 29-11-2016, 07-05-2016 and 16-07-2016 amounting to Rs.2,25,000/-; Rs.2.00 lakh; and Rs.2.00 lakh respectively totalling to Rs.6,25,000/- on the ground that the amount withdrawn on such dates could not have been kept for safe ITA No. 636/PUN/2022 Parag Prabhakar Borole 3 custody for so many months before re-deposit. He also held that the cash withdrawn must have been utilised for the construction activity. Consequently, the addition of Rs.6,25,000/- was made. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition, which has brought the assessee to the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen as an admitted position that the assessee withdrew a sum of Rs.15,45,500/- from his bank accounts on various dates starting with 29-04-2016 and ending on 11-11-2016. A sum of Rs.15.00 lakh was deposited in SBI Home Loan account on 12-11-2016. Ordinarily, if some amount is withdrawn from a bank and there is further deposit also after the date of withdrawal, the presumption is that the amount withdrawn was utilised for re-deposit unless it is shown that such withdrawn amount was utilised elsewhere. Here is a case in which the assessee admitted before the AO that he was constructing his residential house for which the amount was withdrawn from bank. The assessee has also shown a receipt of SBI Home loan of Rs.6.00 lakh on 24.10.2016 included in the total receipts of Rs.15.45 lakh. Normally, housing ITA No. 636/PUN/2022 Parag Prabhakar Borole 4 loan is paid only for utilization in house construction and the amount cannot be retained in cash for a long time. The amount of investment in the house construction is not available on record. If the amount was withdrawn for construction and utilised in such construction, obviously the same cannot be available for re-deposit in the bank account on a later date. In the given circumstances, I set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for verifying the amount of investment in the construction activity. If the amounts withdrawn on different dates totalling to Rs.15,45,500/ are found to have been fully or partly utilised in the construction, then such amount cannot be considered to be available for re-deposit in the bank account on 12-11-2016, warranting addition. If, however, the amount withdrawn is not shown to have been utilised elsewhere, then credit for such withdrawal must be given against the re-deposit. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings. ITA No. 636/PUN/2022 Parag Prabhakar Borole 5 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14 th November, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 14 th November, 2022 Satish आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. 3. थ / The Respondent The CIT(A) concerned 4. 5. The Pr.CIT concerned DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA No. 636/PUN/2022 Parag Prabhakar Borole 6 Date 1. Draft dictated on 10-11-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 10-11-2022 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. *