TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds of appeal :- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in passing the order of assessment in gross violation of the provision of natural justice and further erred in confirming the action of AO in passing ex-parte assessment ignoring the statements of assessee recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A of Income Tax Act and without considering the copies of books of account, sales bills, purchase bills etc. impounded during the course of survey and with AO at the time of assessment and without giving copies of impounded materials to appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment made was in accordance with law when Assessment order was passed without giving the copy of Statement of Pravin Lunkad and without giving Opportunity to cross examine the Pravin Lunkad whose statements were relied upon in drawing the adverse inference. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of cash deposit in Demonetization period of Rs. 1,89,02,000/- made by AO totally ignoring the statement of assessee in survey u/s 133A in which assessee clearly admitted that the cash was given by Mr. Pravin Lunkad an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Smita with Karnataka Bank Ltd A/c No.4237000600108601 and Rs. 22,20,000/- in bank account of wife with Canara Bank Ltd A/c No.0304201002759. During the course of survey, the statement of assessee was recorded u/s 131 of IT Act and in the said statement the asseessee stated that the bogus sales bills was issued by Pranav Lunkad, director of company Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. in the name of Shriram Trading Company, the proprietary concern of assessee and Sarthak Trading Company, proprietary concern of wife Smita Manoj Patane and cash of Rs. 2.70 crores was given by him. The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- in his bank account With Karnataka Bank Ltd and Rs. 80,00,000/- in the bank a/c of his wife Smita with Karnataka Bank Ltd and sent RTGS to Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. against bogus sales bill issued by said company. The survey party also impounded the sales and purchase bills and other loose papers. The backup computer data is also taken by Survey Party in Pen drive. At the time of survey, the books of account was not complete and on the basis of incomplete books of account the assessee declared additional income of Rs. 25,00,000/- under P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." In the present case, the appellant had a deposited Rs. 1,89,02,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period in demonetized currency as detailed in page 7 & 8 of the assessment order. The appellant is found to be the owner of the Money appearing in bank accounts, established through the Bank. The appellant was found owner of the Money but has not offered any acceptable arid cogent explanation regarding the source of such Money found in his bank account. The income earned during the year has not been offered and taxes due there upon has not been paid. The scheme of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would show that in cases where the nature and source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by the assessee is not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then, the value of such investments and money or value of articles not recorded in the books of accounts may be deemed to be the income of such assessee. The provisions of section 69A of the Act treat unexplained money, bullion, etc., as deemed income where the nature and source of investment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that after demonetization period i.e from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2017, there are again absolutely no cash deposits. All the credits are either by RTGS or transfer of funds. On verification of the above table, it is noted that there are multiple deposits on single days. However, it is only during the demonetization period that there are heavy cash deposits in old currency noted of Rs 500/- and Rs 1000/-. On verification of the above table, it is noted that there are multiple deposits on single days. The bank has also furnished a copy of OD Account No 4237000100128201 for FY 2015- 16. On verification of the same, it is noticed that there are not cash deposits except on very few occasions which are also found to be in the normal range of Rs 50,000/- to approximately Rs 6,00,000/-, Thus, the cash deposits during demonetization period are abnormal. However, since till date the assessee did not respond to final show cause dtd 12.12.2019, the issue of source of cash deposits during demonetization period remained totally unexplained". 18. The statements given by the appellant during survey has not been proved by him with any evidence and the statements and the counterstatements by the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Pranav Lunkad but no opportunity was provided to the assessee to cross-examine the said person. Ld. AR further submitted that during the survey proceedings the statement of assessee as well as of Pranav Lunkad were recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act. The assessee in his statement accepted that the cash deposited during demonetization was given by Pranav Lunkad and the same amount was subsequently transferred to the bank accounts of Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. wherein Pranav Lunkad was director and bogus sale bills were issued by him against which the said amount was adjusted. Simultaneously, the statement of Pranav Lunkad was also recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act but it was relied on by the Assessing Officer whereas the statement of the assessee was treated as false. Ld. AR accordingly submitted before the Bench that the impounded material was never provided to the assessee with the help of which he could support his contentions/statements and secondly he was not provided any opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statements were used against him. Accordingly, it was requested by Ld. AR that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may kindly be set-aside and the ma....