Shri Prabhakar Tukaram Chavan, Dhule V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Nashik

ITSSA 10/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Prabhakar Tukaram Chavan against the order of CIT(A), Pune-12, which upheld the addition of Rs.13.15 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits under sections 153 and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on the discovery of bank passbooks belonging to the appellant's relatives during a search operation, which the department presumed indicated the appellant's control over these accounts. The Tribunal, however, found that the Revenue did not provide concrete evidence linking the appellant to the deposits in his relatives' accounts, leading to the decision to delete the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137315 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A.No.10/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 Shri Prabhakar Tukaram Chavan, 01, Mali Lane Shripur, District Dhule. PIN – 425 405. Maharashtra PAN AAPPC3667A vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1 Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri B. Koteswara Rao Date of Hearing : 09.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against CIT(A), Pune-12, Pune’s order dated 30.12.2021 passed in Din & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2021- 22/1038276618(1), in proceedings u/s.153 r.w.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. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance come from the Revenue side that we hardly need to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging correctness 2 I.T.(SS)A.No.10/PUN./2022 Shri Prabhakar Tukaram Chavan, Dhule. of unexplained cash deposits addition of Rs.13.15 lakhs made in both the lower authorities respective orders is concerned. This is for the precise reason that the departmental authorities had found bank pass books in the name of his eight relatives namely elder brother, sister in law, elder brother’s son, younger brother, younger brother’s wife, son of younger brother, daughter and son in law, indicating deposits involving varying sums, totalling to Rs.13.15 lakhs. The Revenue’s stand all along has declined to accept the assessee’s explanation that the said balance in the concerned cooperative bank accounts belong to the account holders only. Mr. Koteswara Rao also made a very strong endeavour to support the impugned addition made in assessee’s hands for this precise reason alone. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and find no merit in Revenue’s arguments. We make it clear that the search in question herein dated 17.01.2018 had indeed led the department to the foregoing assessee’s family members/account holders’ passbooks whose contents are presumed to be correct u/s.292C of the Act. That being the case, we hardly see any reason in Revenue’s stand that the said presumption would further lead us to the conclusion that it was the assessee who 3 I.T.(SS)A.No.10/PUN./2022 Shri Prabhakar Tukaram Chavan, Dhule. had opened all the said bank accounts followed by deposits made in their respective names. Learned CIT-DR could not pinpoint any specific material, including the concerned deposit slips, which could throw light on the assessee’s having deposited the impugned sums in his family members’ accounts. Faced with the situation, we see no reason to sustain the impugned addition of Rs.13.15 lakhs. The same is directed to be deleted. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 10 th January, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.