TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce last two decades. The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23 (Financial year 2021-22) on 08.07.2022 declaring an income of Rs. 6,37,474/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 37,660/-. Based on the information received from CASS about the cash deposits made in Savings bank account and purchase of immovable property, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny to verify the same. Accordingly, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, and the assessee furnished the details and documents called for from time to time. On perusal of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO found that the source for cash deposits of Rs. 75,00,000/- made during the A.Y. 2022-23 was not explained with proper evidence and hence proposed to make an addition u/s.69A of the Act, apart from the source for investment of Rs. 1.23 Crores in immovable property u/s.69 of the Act by issuing a draft assessment order u/s.144C(1) of the Act dated 17.06.2023. The assessee filed an objection against the draft assessment order of the AO, before the DRP - 2, Bengaluru on 22.04.2024. The DRP has rejected the objection in respect of source for cash deposit of Rs. 75.00 Lakhs by issuing a direction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessed has also submitted the following in support of his claim Sl No Evidence produced Remarks 1 SBI NRO Home loan sanctioned utilized Rs. 75,00,000 The evidence for the loan obtained on 09.02.2022 of Rs. 75,00,000/- is submitted by the assessee and is found to be in order 2 Debit of Rs. 48,70,000 in SBI NRO SB on 09.02.2022 The SBI bank statement of the assessee in Account Number 00000040773867259 reflects the debit 09.02.2022 48,70,000/Hence the claim of the assessee is in order 2.3 Upon receipt of Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, the Assessee was again heard on 06.12.2024 where the Remand Report and the Assessee's contentions were discussed. 2.4 Cash deposit of Rs. 75,00,000/-: It is noted that the assessee has submitted the details before the Panel on which the comments of the assessing officer is received. On perusal of the remand report, it is noted that the assessee has submitted that he had desired to acquire a property owned by one Kavitha through her agent Venkateswaran and had paid advance of Rs. 40,00,000/- and as the deal did not materialize the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid back in cash to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts and subsequent refunds by way of cash deposit into his Savings bank account in the paper book filed: "During the financial year 2021-22, the applicant had desired to acquire a property owned one Kavitha thro her agent Venkateswaran and had paid an advance of Rs 40,00,000 to the said Kavitha as instructed by the agent Venkateswaran, online from his ICICI Bank Limited NRO savings account number 6119012011107 details of payments of Rs 40,00,000 are as under PAYMENTS TO KAVITHA SL.NO: BANK DATE AMOUNT 1 ICICI 14-06-2021 10,000 2 ICICI 14-06-2021 10,000 3 ICICI 14-06-2021 9,90,000 4 ICICI 15-06-2021 9,90,000 5 ICICI 16-06-2021 10,00,000 6 ICICI 17-06-2021 10,00,000 TOTAL 40,00,000 (d) But for some strange reasons not known to me, the said vendor did not evince interest and the deal had to be called off. At the instance of the said Kavitha her agent Venkateswaran had remitted the entire sum of Rs 40.00,000 in CASH within five days of my online payment as under RECEIPTS FROM KAVITH SL.NO: BANK DATE AMOUNT 1 ICICI 22-06-2021 40,00,000 TOTAL 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned money loomed with successive bad luck on me and this was very much in my mind, as I had no time to engage in litigation whatsoever resulting in acceptance of CASH from the relators. (l) I the applicant was not aware of the restrictions of cash receipts in bank savings account, fearing loss of the advance, as stressed unable to come to India on account of Covid and its post situation, doubtful of delayed realization if opted thro legal proceedings, was forced to accept cash which had been remitted by the said Venkateswaran on his own volition: SL.NO: Party Payments Receipts 1 Kavitha 40,00,000 40,00,000 2 Sathya 10,00,000 10,00,000 3 Thangam 10,00,000 10,00,000 4 Venkateswaran 15,00,000 15,00,000 TOTAL 75,00,000 75,00,000 5. The ld.AR further took us through the bank statements (Page No.34 to 38 of SBI and Page No.39 to 44 of ICICI Bank in Paper book) of the assessee by correlating the advances paid as above and corresponding refunds by way of cash deposits from site owners / Brokers (commission agents). Further, the ld.AR also shown the confirmations given by Mr. Tangam, Mr. Venkateswaran and Ms. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with identity and creditworthiness of the lender by furnishing necessary details and documents and hence, we are inclined to delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 24,20,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act." In light of the above arguments, the ld.AR prayed for deleting the additions made by the AO. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR for the revenue relied on the orders of the Authorities and submitted that the assessee has just given the confirmation of the broker to prove the cash deposits on behalf of refunds made by the site owners. Hence, prayed for confirming the order of the AO. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, including the paper book filed by the assessee, and carefully considered the orders of the AO and the directions of the DRP along with the paper book filed and the case laws relied upon. The sole issue involved in this appeal is whether the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- made by the AO u/s.69A of the Act, treating the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account as unexplained money, and confirmed by the DRP, is sustainable in law and on facts. The following facts are not in dispute that th....