ITO v Khalid Mustafa Vasaiwala

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Kavita Chandra v. CIT(A) 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1504 (P&H-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 4272 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH ABY T. VARKEY (J.M.) & GAGAN GOYAL (A.M.) ITO v. Khalid Mustafa Vasaiwala I.T.A No. 4259 /Mum/2018 29 April, 2022 Assessees by : K Gopal, Adv./ Om Kandalkar Department by Anil S Sant, Sr.AR ORDER *Aby T. Varkey (JM):* This is an appeal preferred by the department, against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-32, Mumbai dated 9-3-2018 for assessment year 2014-15. 2. Grounds 1 & 2 are against the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.88,88,000. 3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the assessing officer are that he noticed from the bank account statements filed by the assessee that there were huge cash deposits at frequent intervals. According to him, the assessee had introduced cash of Rs.18 lakhs in his capital account for which he has stated that it is out of cash withdrawal. However, according to the assessing officer, there are many cash deposits which are unexplained and the assessees explanation is very generic and not explaining each entry and accordingly, he made a table by giving the account number as well as the date of cash deposits totaling Rs.88,88,000 which cash deposits, according to him, assessee failed to explain to his satisfaction. Therefore, he made an addition of Rs.88,88,000 under section 68 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter, the Act). Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to delete the addition by observing as under:-- 5. DECISION: I have given my careful consideration to :he statement of facts and perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. Ground I - Addition of Rs.88.88,000 as unexplained cash deposit The appellant had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.88,88,000 during the year. The appellant had submitted a copy of the cash book and bank book evidencing the cash withdrawals and depositions to prove that the cash depositions were made from cash withdrawals only. The assessing officer held that the appellant had not provided any explanation as well as the explanation was not satisfactory and accordingly, added the same to the total income of the appellant. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 4272 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

ABY T. VARKEY (J.M.) & GAGAN GOYAL (A.M.)

ITO v. Khalid Mustafa Vasaiwala

I.T.A No. 4259 /Mum/2018

29 April, 2022

Assessees by : K Gopal, Adv./ Om Kandalkar

Department by Anil S Sant, Sr.AR

ORDER

Aby T. Varkey (JM):

This is an appeal preferred by the department, against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-32, Mumbai dated 9-3-2018 for assessment year 2014-15.

2. Grounds 1 & 2 are against the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.88,88,000.

3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the assessing officer are that he noticed from the bank account statements filed by the assessee that there were huge cash deposits at frequent intervals. According to him, the assessee had introduced cash of Rs.18 lakhs in his capital account for which he has stated that it is out of cash withdrawal. However, according to the assessing officer, there are many cash deposits which are unexplained and the assessees explanation is very generic and not explaining each entry and accordingly, he made a table by giving the account number as well as the date of cash deposits totaling Rs.88,88,000 which cash deposits, according to him, assessee failed to explain to his satisfaction. Therefore, he made an addition of Rs.88,88,000 under section 68 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter, the Act). Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to delete the addition by observing as under:--

5. DECISION:

I have given my careful consideration to :he statement of facts and perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.

Ground I - Addition of Rs.88.88,000 as unexplained cash deposit

The appellant had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.88,88,000 during the year. The appellant had submitted a copy of the cash book and bank book evidencing the cash withdrawals and depositions to prove that the cash depositions were made from cash withdrawals only. The assessing officer held that the appellant had not provided any explanation as well as the explanation was not satisfactory and accordingly, added the same to the total income of the appellant.