IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HON’BLE , AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 780 & 775 /PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gopalrao Shankarrao Nagras, S.No.162, B-1, Flat No.302, Nagras Estate Aundhgao, Pune – 411 007.

PAN: AAIPN0954C . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Ms Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Date of conclusive Hearing : 01/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05/08/2024

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM;

These twin appeals instituted u/s 253(1)(a) of the Act by the assessee are assailed against separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of separate order of assessment passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune [‘AO’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 [‘AYs’ hereinafter];

2. Since facts & substantive issue involved in both these appeals being identical & common, at the request of rival parties, these are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for a common & consolidated order.

3. Tersely stated common facts arising out of the case records are that;

2.1 Upon the receipt of information from ITO (Inv) vide letter dt. 11/12/201 that the assessee has repaid portion of loan taken by him from ‘Yogiraj Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha’ [‘YNSP’ hereinafter] in cash, the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 were re-opened and in the event of effective failure to prove nature & source of cash repayment of ₹1.438Lakhs and ₹1.20Lakhs, the same were bought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of assessee vide assessment orders framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

2.2 The aforestated additions were unsuccessfully contested in an appeal before first appellate authority. Consequently, the assessee came before us in present twin appeals alleging the actions of tax authorities below on two effective grounds as;

1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provision and ‘

scheme of the Act it be held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 is not in accordance with the framework of the provisions of the Act and bad in law.

The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.

2. Without prejudice to 1^st and as per provision and scheme of the Act it be held that the addition of Rs. 143,800/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of addition u/s 69A is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The addition so made to be deleted.

’

4. Heard rival submission and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT, Rules’] perused the material placed on records and considered the facts of the case/s in the light of settled position of law which are forewarned to the rival parties. We note that, the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2015-16 on 05/07/2016 & for AY 2016-17 18/11/2016 declaring total income of ₹8,10,960/- & ₹9,41,300/- respectively. For the purpose of construction the assessee availed a loan from YNSP & upon disbursement the sum was transferred to his bank account maintained with ‘Saraswat Co-Op. Bank’ [‘SCB’ hereinafter], wherefrom he withdrew a cash of ₹23.75Lakhs for the purpose. The balance of cash withdrawal intermittently or finally left over after meeting his construction needs were deposited with YNSP towards repayment of loan. Upon the information of such cash repayment the Ld. AO re-opened the assessment to verify nature & source thereof, in the absence of any reply, evidence & in the event of non-cooperation from the assessee, the Ld. AO came to conclude that, cash withdrawal made out of loan availed from YNSP were meant from constructions & since it were fully utilized therefor, the assessee had no balance to repay the loan