| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6874 & 6875/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Arun Ashar Dy. Commissioner of Income

101, 10^th Floor Vs Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai Maktangan Sarojini Road Santacruz (W)

Mumbai - 400054 [PAN: AAQPA2836A]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/R Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

I.T.A. No. 6874 & 6875/Mum/2024 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)- 48, Mumbai [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to AY 2016-17 &

2017-18.

2. Since the underlying facts in the issues are identical for both the years, the appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Though quantum may differ.

3. The common grievance relates to the addition made u/s 69A of the Act by the AO in respect of cash alleged to have been received by the assessee as unexplained money.

4. Before embarking upon the facts of the case, it would be pertinent to understand the provisions of Section 69A of the Act came to be inserted by the Finance Act, 1964 w.e.f. 01/05/1964 and the same reads as under:-

“69A. Unexplained money, etc. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the 4 Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year."

4.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. N. Singh v .CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) has analysed the aforementioned provisions of Section

69A of the Act threadbare as under:- “a. The assessee must be found to be the owner;

b. He must be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles; c. The said articles must not be recorded in the Books of Account, if any maintained;

d. The assessee is unable to offer an explanation regarding the nature and the source of acquiring articles in question; or The explanation, which is offered, is found to be, in the opinion of the Officer, not satisfactory;

e. If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then, the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed as the income of the financial year in which the assessee is found to be owner;

f. In the case of money, the money can be deemed to be the income of the financial year;”

5. In light of the aforementioned analysis, let us now consider the facts of the case which can be understood from the following findings of the AO given at para 4 of his order in AY 2016-17:-

“During the course of recording statement of Ms. Nayna Pasta at 5C, Ameyanand, Near Kirti College, Prabhadevi, Mumbai u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.09.2021, Ms. Nayna Pasta confessed that she had received amount of USD 1,00,000 on 08.02.16 and USD 50,000 on 28.08.16 in India from a person on behalf of Rajiv Saxena. Ms. Nayna Pasta stated that the person came from Ballard Estate Office to deliver the total amount of Rs 1 Cr in cash both the times. Rajiv Saxena had sent a currency note of Rs 10 to her that has to be shown that person to get cash of Rs 1 Cr. Further, she stated that this amount of Rs 1 Cr was received by her on behalf