Jaya Vinod Sancheti Nashik vs Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2) Nashik

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.

S.

GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.379/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jaya Vinod Sancheti, 143, Vinod Bunglow, D’ Souza Colony, Nashik-422005.

PAN : BULPS7281R Vs.

ITO, Ward-2(2), Nashik.

Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S.

GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’s order dated 29.07.2021 passed in case no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/103450367(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 sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in Assessee by : Shri Pramod S.

Shingte Revenue by : Shri M.

G.

Jasnani Date of hearing : 25.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 25.07.2022 ITA No.379/PUN/2021 2 treating her cash deposits of Rs.19.19 lakhs as unexplained to the extent of Rs.6,80,000/-, it is noticed with the able assistance of both the parities that the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 23.12.2016 has duly tabulated the said four instances of cash deposits as well as the corresponding source(s) explained as the withdrawals made in August, 2013, November, 2013 vis-à-vis the deposits made on 10.09.2013, 05.12.2013, 14.03.2014 and 20.03.2014; respectively.

Learned Assessing Officer therefore treated Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- each as unexplained which has been upheld in the lower appellate findings.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and find no reason to express concurrence with either one of them in entirety.

This is on account of the fact that neither the assessee has been able to explain the genuineness element of its earlier withdrawals getting re-deposited on all four occasions nor the department could highlight anything to the contrary in the taxpayer’s cash flow cash flow in issue.

Face with this situation, I deem it appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

ITA No.379/PUN/2021 3 4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced on this 25th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- (S.

GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25th July, 2022.

Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant.

2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.

The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

The Pr.

CIT concerned.

5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune.

6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.