AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.55,58,000/- made by the A.O invoking sec.69A on account of unexplained investment. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received that though the assessee during the year under consideration had made cash deposits of Rs.55.58 lacs in his bank account but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2013-14, the AO had resorted to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the cash deposits in the bank account was undeniably the amounts received by the assessee from purchase/sale of land. However, as the assessee had failed to place on record copies of the purchase deeds, therefore, the A.O held the entire amount of Rs.55.58 lac (supra) as the unexplained income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en a thoughtful consideration to the facts involved in the present case before us in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the simplicitor cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account could not have been held as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bhaichand H. Gandhi (supra) and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul M. Vyas (supra) as had been relied upon by the Ld. AR before us. Although we have principally concurred with the aforesaid claim of the ld. AR, but the same in our considered view would not have any material bearing on the sus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. Adverting to the merits of the case, it transpires that the assessee except for coming forth with an unsubstantiated explanation before the A.O that the amount in question represented the sale proceeds of lands which he in the normal course of his business was holding, as a broker, for and on behalf of his clients (i.e sellers of property), had however failed to substantiate the same on the basis of any supporting documentary evidence. 11. On appeal, the assessee had came forth with a novel claim that he a/w. two other persons, viz. Shri Santosh Yadav and Shri Ghanshyam Sahu were involved in land brokerage business. It was the claim of the assessee that the cash deposit of Rs.55.58 lac (supra) pertained to five sale transactions wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n; - We only knew that if the total profit which is received by me is within the taxable limit I may not be required to pay tax; -Since my total income is within the limit I got relieved without knowing that transactions related to other persons and partners should not be reflected through my account; -I have done all transactions and only the basic profit which is 1-3% per deal is only our income; -We use to distribute the income after each deal: - So my declaration is true and may be accepted. The CIT(Appeals) in order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee had referred to one of the sale transaction of Rs.16.90 lacs (approx.) in which Shri. Santosh Yadav (supra) w....