Parag Motilal Savla Vs NFAC (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on record incriminating the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 deleted.
Facts- The appellant assessee is an individual engaged in the business of professional photography. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in October 2017 in the case of M/s. Evergreen Enterprises. On the basis of documents found and seized during the course of search action, it was established that Shri. Nilesh Bharani has received cash loans from various individuals and concerns. The name of the assessee was appearing in the list of persons who gave cash loans of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to Shri. Nilesh Bharani during the year under consideration.
The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. After considering the submissions made by assessee, AO made addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as unexplained/unaccounted cash u/s. 69 of the Act.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Tribunal in assesse’s own case of AY 2012-13 held that the addition made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on record incriminating the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly we hold that the addition of Rs.21,50,000 made by the AO is hereby deleted.
