Sunil Solanki v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Arihant Associates v. ITO 2023 TaxPub(DT) 7297 (Raip-Trib)
REFERRED Dy CIT v MC Hospital 2022 TaxPub(DT) 6513 (Chen-Trib)
REFERRED RS Diamonds India (P) Ltd v Asstt CIT 2022 TaxPub(DT) 6128 (Mum-Trib)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersITA No. 95/RPR/2024 2024 TaxPub(DT) 1771 (Raip-Trib) IN THE ITAT RAIPUR BENCH RAVISH SOOD, J.M. Sunil Solanki v. ITO ITA No. 95/RPR/2024 8 April, 2024 Assessee by: R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by: Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER *Ravish Sood, J.M.* The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30-1-2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 19-12-2019 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: '1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 22,30,000 made by assessing officer on account of cash deposited in bank account of the appellant, holding it to be unexplained money, invoking Section 69A. The addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is arbitrary, baseless without appreciating facts of the case property and is not justified. 2. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.' 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for assessment year 2017- 18 on 20.06.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 1,53,780. The case of the assessee was, thereafter, selected for limited scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act for verifying the large cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 22.30 lacs in his bank accounts with Bank of India, Branch: Raipur. On being queried about the aforesaid cash deposits, it was claimed by the assessee that the same were sourced out of sale proceeds of agriculture produce of 16 acres of agricultural land (including 8 acres of agriculture land situated at Vill. Kapasada, Dist. Durg taken on lease from his nephew) under his self-cultivation. However, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee did not find favor with the assessing officer. On a perusal of the cash book produced by the assessee, the assessing officer. observed that cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account had substantially increased in comparison to those made in the same period during the immediately preceding years. Also, it was observed by the assessing officer that the land holding of the assessee during the year under consideration had remained the same as that of the preceding years. Further, it was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee had failed to place on record any documentary evidence that would substantiate his claim as regards the source of cash deposits in his bank accounts. Accordingly, the assessing officer held the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs. 22.30 lacs (approx.) as the assessee's unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No. 95/RPR/2024
2024 TaxPub(DT) 1771 (Raip-Trib)

IN THE ITAT RAIPUR BENCH

RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

Sunil Solanki v. ITO

ITA No. 95/RPR/2024

8 April, 2024

Assessee by: R.B Doshi, CA

Revenue by: Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

ORDER

Ravish Sood, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30-1-2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 19-12-2019 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

'1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 22,30,000 made by assessing officer on account of cash deposited in bank account of the appellant, holding it to be unexplained money, invoking Section 69A. The addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is arbitrary, baseless without appreciating facts of the case property and is not justified.

2. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.'

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for assessment year 2017- 18 on 20.06.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 1,53,780. The case of the assessee was, thereafter, selected for limited scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act for verifying the large cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period.

3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 22.30 lacs in his bank accounts with Bank of India, Branch: Raipur. On being queried about the aforesaid cash deposits, it was claimed by the assessee that the same were sourced out of sale proceeds of agriculture produce of 16 acres of agricultural land (including 8 acres of agriculture land situated at Vill. Kapasada, Dist. Durg taken on lease from his nephew) under his self-cultivation. However, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee did not find favor with the assessing officer. On a perusal of the cash book produced by the assessee, the assessing officer. observed that cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account had substantially increased in comparison to those made in the same period during the immediately preceding years. Also, it was observed by the assessing officer that the land holding of the assessee during the year under consideration had remained the same as that of the preceding years. Further, it was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee had failed to place on record any documentary evidence that would substantiate his claim as regards the source of cash deposits in his bank accounts. Accordingly, the assessing officer held the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs. 22.30 lacs (approx.) as the assessee's unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.