SUKHADEV BAPURAO KACHARE,SANGLI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 1861/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sukhadev Bapurao Kachare against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 11,03,860 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that this amount represented cash withdrawn from a bank for purchasing machinery, which was re-deposited due to demonetization before the purchase could be made. The Tribunal examined the bank statements and found that the cash withdrawals and deposits were correctly recorded, and the loan obtained for purchasing the machinery was also repaid shortly after the deposit. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30074 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD SHINGTE
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

" ।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1861/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sukhadev Bapurao Kachare, KIndarwadi Ped, Tasgaon, Sangli – 416321. PAN: BLWPK5961L V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Sangli. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri Manoj Tripathi – DR Date of hearing 28/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 29/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for Assessment Year 2017-18dated 20.05.2024 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO has erred in passing order u/s 144 without appreciating the fact that appellant has not received the relevant notices referred by Ld. AO and therefore did not get opportunityto represent The matter. In ITA No.1861/PUN/2024 2 view of this the assessment order passed u/s 144 is void ab initio and deserves to be struck down. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 11,03,860/- u/s 69A- Unexplained money by disregarding the explanation offered by appellant that his amount represents the cash withdrawn from the bank and re-deposited back. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter, amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative of the Assessee filed paper book. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee is a small time businessman. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has added Rs.11,03,856/- u/sec.69A of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that Assessee had obtained Loan from Canara Bank for Purchase of Machinery of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said Loan was disbursed by the bank on 24/10/2016. The Assessee withdrew the said amount in cash from the Bank. But before the assessee could purchase machinery, there was demonetization. Hence, assessee deposited entire amount in his Bank account. All these facts are clearly visible in the Bank statement. Ld.CIT(A) has also reproduced the same. But Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on the ground that in the statement cash withdrawal is not seen , this is erroneous ITA No.1861/PUN/2024 3 findings as in the bank statement it is clearly seen. Ld.AR took us through the bank statement. Ld.AR has submitted that the remaining amount of Rs.1,03,856/- was sourced from accumulated saving. Ld.AR submitted that hence addition may be deleted. Submission of Ld. DR : 3. Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and ld.CIT(A). However, on our specific query, Ld.DR accepted that the cash withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000/- is seen in the Bank Statement of Account Number 0860101040423 on 24/10/2016. Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The assessee had not filed return of Income u/sec.139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received information on AIMS Portal of the Income tax Department that the assessee had deposited cash in his bank account during the year. Hence, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.142 asking the assessee to file the return of income. Then, AO issued another notice and show cause notice. The assessee failed to comply. Hence, Assessment Order was passed u/sec.144 of the Act assessing the income of the assessee at ITA No.1861/PUN/2024 4 Rs.11,03,860/-which was the Total amount of cash deposited by the assessee in his two accounts maintained with Canara Bank during the year. The Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Assessee filed documentary evidence which was admitted by Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) obtained a report of the AO on the documents filed by the Assessee. Then Ld.CIT(A) narrated facts in para 8.2 of his order and concluded that Cash Withdrawal are not seen in the Bank account as claimed by the assessee and upheld the Addition. Thus, Ld.CIT(A) has upheld only on one ground that cash withdrawal not reflected in the Bank statement. However, this fact mentioned by the Ld.CIT(A) is wrong. We have perused the Bank statement of the Assessee of Account No.0860101040423. It is observed in the Bank statement that Assessee received Loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from Bank on 24/10/2016 and on 24/10/2016 he withdrew entire Rs.10,00,000/- in cash. The assessee submitted that same amount was deposited in bank due to demonetization as assessee could not purchase the machinery due to some reasons.Ld.AR has submitted that the remaining amount of Rs.1,03,856/- was sourced from accumulated saving. It is also ITA No.1861/PUN/2024 5 observed from the document of Bank that Assessee has repaid the loan taken on 24.10.2016 immediately after depositing the cash. This fact is accepted by Assessing Officer in the Remand Report dated 26.02.2024 filed to ld.CIT(A). We agree with the submission of the Assessee that the cash withdrawn on 24/10/2016 was re-deposited in bank. The time gap between the deposits and withdrawal is very short. We agree with the assessee that it was a festival period and the assessee could not purchase the machinery due to some reason. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that assessee had explained the source of cash deposits made by him. The primary onus is on assessee but once the primary onus is fulfilled by the assessee the onus shifts to department. The Revenue has not brought any fact on record to rebut it. Hence, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.11,03,856/- made u/s 69A of the Act. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29th Nov, 2024/ SGR* ITA No.1861/PUN/2024 6 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, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "