TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-10, Pune [for short "AO"] for assessment year [for short "AY"] 2013-14. 2. The appeal seeks to adjudicate the taxability of onmoney received on the transfer of capital asset. 3. The grounds of appeal in the appeal memo for adjudication are; "On facts and in law - 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treatment of amount of Rs.52 lacs deposited in bank account as unexplained cash deposits. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of appellant that cash received was against sale of property and same to be treated as Income from Capital gain and not from unexplained cash credit. For this and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lminated the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4.4 The impugned addition was unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate authority [for short "FAA"], for the reason the appellant seeking relief on the ground set at para 3 herein before. 5. In the course of physical hearing, the assessee represented himself in person and at the outset referring to affidavit and application filed for condonation of delay in instituting the appeal, reiterated its contents and prayed for condonation. Pressing the ground number 2 it is submitted the impugned addition and confirmation thereof by the Ld. FAA was on account of misrepresentation by the engaged representative, whereas the amount of cash deposit was out of on-money (cash) generat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ason in belated filing of the appeal, consequently in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Collector Land Acquisition Vs MST Katiji and Others" reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in "CIT Vs Velingkar Brothers" reported at 289 ITR 382 (Bom), the delay stands condoned in the larger interest of justice. 8. Coming to the sole, substantive and meritare ground of appeal, it remained an undisputed fact that, the appellant fell into non-filer category as per the database of Revenue, consequently in the evince of substantial financial transactions undertaken including cash deposits into saving bank account exceeding Rs.10Lakhs and in the absence of return of income on record, the case of the appellant was subjected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposits would have been anterior to said sale transaction. Insofar as the revenue's action is concerned, at least something extra and weighing would have been unearthed over and above the financial information received in AIMS module / ITD system in order to draw presumption so has to conclude income by way of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that, said amount of cash deposit(s) is actually untaxed income credited in the form of cash credit. It is quite a trite law that suspicion how so ever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition except for some material evidence brought on record. The theor....