YOGESHPRASAD A. JAISWAL, AURAMGABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMRAVATI

ITA 74/NAG/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Yogeshprasad A. Jaiswal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which treated his cash deposits of Rs.14,51,150 as unexplained under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed that these deposits were from cash loans obtained from eight family members. The Revenue challenged the genuineness and creditworthiness of these loans. The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully substantiate the loans, the possibility of small amounts of past savings could not be entirely ruled out, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal. Furthermore, the Tribunal removed an additional Rs.5,60,000 added for violations related to cash transactions, emphasizing that such violations are subject to specific penalties rather than additions under the income tax provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136796 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 271D; 271E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.74/NAG/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Yogeshprasad A. Jaiswal, 11, Siddhnath Complex, CIDCO, N-6, Aurangabad- 431003. PAN : ANTPJ3006B Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Amravati. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi’s order dated 31.03.2022 passed in case no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1042276582(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits of Rs.14,51,150/- as unexplained, it emerges at the outset with the able assistance of learned counsel(s) that his stands all along had attributed the same to cash loans Assessee by : Shri Shubham Rathi Revenue by : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date of hearing : 02.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.12.2022 ITA No.74/NAG/2022 2 obtained from 8 family members/relatives, namely, S/Shri Sawan Gokulprasad Jaiswal, Akash Nandlal Jaiswal, Alkesh Ambikaprasad Jaiswal, Ashok Jaglal Jaiswal, Ghanshyam Madanlal Jaiswal, Madanlal Jaglal Jaiswal, Pankaj Ashoklal Jaiswal and Ambikaprasad Jaiswal, involving varying sums. The Revenue’s vehement argument during the course of hearing is that the assessee could not prove genuineness/creditworthiness of the said varying cash loans along with the source of all his family members. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stands and find no reason to express my agreement with the either parties’ contentions in entirety. This is for the reason that neither the assessee has been able to prove the impugned cash loans from his family members by filing all the relevant supportive details nor the department could dispute that even possibility of past savings cash in hand such small amounts from family members could not be ruled out per se. Faced with this situation, this tribunal deems it appropriate to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.14,51,150/- to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- only with the rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. Next comes the latter addition of Rs.5,60,000/-. There is hardly any dispute that both the learned lower authorities have made the impugned addition on account of violation of section 269SS and ITA No.74/NAG/2022 3 269ST i.e. availing and repaying the cash loans only. Learned departmental representative could not dispute that such adjacent attracts section 271D and section 271E penalties than any addition under the provisions of the Act. I therefore delete the impugned addition of Rs.5,60,000/- for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 27 th day of December, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27 th December, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, नागपुर / DR, ITAT, Nagpur. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.