2015 (11) TMI 1678 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits - need based cash withdrawals from his bank account - Held that - According to CIT(A) merely because cash was withdrawn on a particular date also does not imply that the cash already withdrawn on earlier dates had been utilized. We fully endorse the above view of the CIT(A). The Assessing officer has made the observation that in the case the assessee was actually having cash in hand of 13, 48, 638/- as on 1.4.2007 there was hardly any reason for making further cash withdrawals. CIT(A) has correctly held that this observation of the Assessing officer is without any basis. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that assessee had explained during the course of assessment proceedings that cash was withdrawn with the intention to buy some properly. The Ld. CIT(A) has categorically observed that actual amount of cash required in these circumstances would be known to the assessee only. He has also stated that there is no bar in keeping the cash at home according to requirements. Thus observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are correct and therefore we do not see any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The question involved in this case is of facts and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and decided the issue correctly. - Appeal of the Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to deletion of addition of Rs. 19,60,000 as income from undisclosed sources.

Analysis:

1. Assessment and Addition:
The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 19,60,000 as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee, an individual, declared a total income of Rs. 93,959, including salary, rental income, and interest on deposits. The Assessing Officer added the sum deposited in cash with ICICI bank, Ludhiana, as undisclosed income without discussing the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

2. CIT(A)'s Decision:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the cash flow statements submitted by the appellant, explaining the source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) noted that the cash available with the appellant was from withdrawals made against a loan, and subsequent deposits were adequately explained. The CIT(A) found the Assessing Officer's contentions unfounded and held that the appellant had discharged the onus to explain the source of cash deposits.

3. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer overlooked details of cash in hand and the cash ledger account. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings that the withdrawals and deposits were duly recorded, and the appellant had explained the purpose of withdrawals. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, considering it a factual matter correctly decided by the CIT(A).

4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 19,60,000 as income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities' findings that the appellant had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits, based on the evidence provided and the proper maintenance of books of accounts.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the challenge to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 19,60,000 as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT(A) and the Appellate Tribunal both found in favor of the assessee, ruling that the appellant had adequately explained the source of cash deposits through documented evidence and proper record-keeping practices. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the cash flow statements, balance sheets, and explanations provided by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.