TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see has purchased three properties for Rs. 37,50,000/- each, sold property for consideration of Rs. 37,50,000/-, amount received u/s 194-I of Rs. 1,54,980/- and u/s 194C of Rs. 13,380/-. He, therefore, reopened the assessment by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2022 in response to which the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,190/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details. 4. From the submissions filed by the assessee the Assessing Officer observed from the bank statement that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 5,77,500/- and made incidental expenses for purchase of property at Rs. 1,31,064/- and Rs. 1,39,801/- in cash. Further, the assessee was unable to explain the source of investment in purchase of the properties. After considering the various submissions made by the assessee from time to time, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ramdas with UCO bank, Kesnanad vide account No.23440110006061 from which Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas has given an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on 23.11.2017. He submitted that in the said bank account the opening balance as on 11.04.2017 was Rs. 2,08,879.35 and there are continuous deposits and withdrawals in the said bank account which are all through banking channel. He submitted that since Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas is a doctor filing his return of income regularly and confirmed to have given a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to the assessee from his bank account which has sufficient balance before giving the loan, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8. So far as the addition of Rs. 5,77,500/- u/s 69A of the Act is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to pages 104 and 105 of the paper book and drew the attention of the Bench to the various submissions made by the assessee and submitted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 5,77,500/- in the bank account maintained with State Bank of India from time to time out of his business of missal pav centre. He submitted that the assessee was off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while explaining the source of investment has explained that he has received a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas. We find the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not given the bank statement of Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas for the entire year but has given the statement for the part period and that Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas has declared income of Rs. 4,28,216/- only for the assessment year 2018-19. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer, since Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas has declared meagre income and after giving the loan only meagre amount is left in the said bank account of the lender, therefore, the creditworthiness is doubtful. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while sustaining the addition held that the creditworthiness of Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas is doubtful since the quantum of income declared in his return of income prima facie is not commensurate with the impugned loan amount. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that Shri Gawade Maruti Ramdas is a practicing doctor, regular filer of income tax return, has given his confirmation, amounts were routed through bank account and that ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer is directed to modify the order accordingly. 14. So far as the second issue i.e. addition of Rs. 5,77,500/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit is concerned, we find the Assessing Officer made addition of the same on the ground that the assessee could not explain the source of such cash deposit which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is showing business income from Missal Pav Centre and has declared turnover of Rs. 5,45,248/- and offered presumptive income @ 8%. The business income declared by the assessee has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the source of the said deposit is out of the business receipt of the Missal Pav Centre as well as the previous withdrawals. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has offered presumptive income @ 8% on turnover of Rs. 5,45,248/- u/s 44AD of the Act. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,77,500/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act. We, therefore, set asi....