Pr.Commissioner Of Income ... vs Late Shri.Sunil D Gulati L/H Smt ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3493 Bom

                                                    1/3                       944-ITXA-747-2017.doc

   PURTI
   PRASAD
   PARAB                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
PURTI PRASAD PARAB
Date: 2022.04.01
                              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
16:56:02 +0530


                                 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 747 OF 2017

        Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,
        Central 3                                                       ....Appellant
              V/s.
        Late Sunil D. Gulati
        L/H Shabnam S. Gulati                                           ...Respondent

                                                    ----
        Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant.
        Mr. Manoj Pandit for Respondent.
                                                    ----

                                                          CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
                                                                  N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 30th MARCH, 2022

P.C. :

1. Heard counsel and appeal is admitted on the following

substantial questions of law :

QUESTIONS OF LAW

6.1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.22,64,000/- [1,04,000 + 21,60,000] being unaccounted deposits in bank accounts with Cosmos Cooperative Bank Limited and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited in the name of M/s. Satguru Arts [proprietary concern of the assessee] on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee, ignoring that the assessee's claim that the bank account related to his HUF was an after thought as the assessee failed to produce any evidence to show that the account pertained to HUF?

6.2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7,02,000/- and Rs.35,000/- being unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C made on the basis of notings of cash payments found in the Deal-wise Excel Sheets (DWES) seized in the course of search operation,

Purti Parab 2/3 944-ITXA-747-2017.doc

thereby holding that there was nothing on record to suggest that the assessee was doing the said transactions at his own, without appreciating that the onus lies on the assessee to produce cogent material before the Assessing Officer to rebut the presumption u/s. 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the assessee failed to produce anything before the appellate authorities to indicate that the cash payments were duly accounted for and were forming part of his books of accounts?

6.3 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,04,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- being unaccounted cash receipts made on the basis of material seized/impounded in the course of search operation at the assessee's residential premises and survey action at his office premises, thereby holding that there was nothing on record to suggest that the assessee was doing the said transactions at his own, without appreciating that the onus lies on the assessee to produce cogent material before the Assessing Officer to rebut the presumption u/s. 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

6.4 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.47,00,000/- [28,00,000 + 19,00,000] being unexplained cash credits made u/s. 68 without appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge his onus of providing the relevant details like address, PAN, bank account statements and partners' bank account statements, account conformation letters, copy of ITRs and to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned persons vis- a-vis genuineness of transactions?

6.5 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.98,00,000/- [15,00,000 + 83,00,000] being unexplained current liabilities/deposits made u/s.68 without appreciating that the assessee failed to discharge his onus of providing the relevant details like PAN, bank account statements and parties' bank account statements, account conformation letters and to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned persons vis-a-vis genuineness of transactions?

Purti Parab
                                       3/3                      944-ITXA-747-2017.doc

2. As regards proposed substantial question no.6.6 Mr. Suresh

Kumar states that he is not pressing this proposed substantial question of

law since it is already covered by the judgment of Bombay High Court in

Commissioner of Income-Tax II, Thane vs. Continental Warehousing

Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.1

3. Respondent waives service.

4. Appeal to come up for hearing in due course.

5. The Registrar (Judicial) / Registrar, High Court, Original Side,

Bombay to ensure that the original record in relation to this Appeal is

summoned from the tribunal and offered for inspection of the parties. This

paper book is treated sufficient for the purpose of admission of this Appeal.

However, the Registry must further ensure preparation of complete paper

book in accordance with the Rules. The Registry in the first instance must

send intimation of admission of this Appeal enclosing therewith a copy of

this order so as to enable the Tribunal to act accordingly.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)                                   (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)




1 [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay)

Purti Parab