2016 (12) TMI 295 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s.69 - unexplained deposits in loan a/c of Bank - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that it has been assessee s consistent stand before the lower authorities that the source of cash deposits in the loan account were the repayment of loans by the husband of the assessee to the assessee when he was alive and her husband was looking after all the transactions. It is also an undisputed fact that the Assessee lost her husband in car accident in 2004. Though it is a fact that Assessee has not been able to demonstrate her contentions with any tangible evidence but at the same time it is also a fact, that there is nothing on record placed by the Revenue to prove that the submissions made by the Assessee are wrong or incorrect. As it is seen that Ld CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition on the basis of presumption like as to why the assessee kept the cash with her for long and did not deposit the sum in her loan account immediately to liquidate the loan. Before us, Assessee in person has submitted that due to the death of her husband and domestic issues at her end, she could not furnish the required details. The aforesaid contentions of the Assessee have not been controverted by the Revenue. Before us, Assessee has also placed on record the copy of the bank statements which also supports her contention of financial crisis. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and in the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that in the absence of any material on record to demonstrate that the contentions of the assessee are wrong, no addition is called for in the present case. We therefore direct its deletion. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
Addition made under section 69 for unexplained deposits in the bank account.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. The issue in all three years was identical, involving unexplained deposits in the bank account totaling ?25 lakhs. The Assessing Officer made additions based on cash deposits of ?5 lakhs in the bank account for the year under consideration. The Assessee claimed that the cash deposits were from loans given by her deceased husband, which were returned before his death. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and made the additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's order, stating that the Assessee failed to provide documentary evidence supporting her claim. The Assessee contended that due to domestic issues and financial crisis, she couldn't produce the necessary evidence. The Tribunal noted that while the Assessee couldn't provide tangible evidence, the Revenue also failed to disprove her contentions. The Tribunal found no basis for the additions and directed their deletion for all three assessment years.

In the absence of concrete evidence contradicting the Assessee's claims, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the deletion of the additions made under section 69 for unexplained deposits. The Tribunal considered the Assessee's circumstances, including the domestic issues and financial crisis she faced, and found the lack of evidence from the Revenue to challenge her assertions. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof had not been met by the Revenue to justify the additions. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee for all three assessment years, allowing the appeals and ordering the deletion of the additions.

The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with evidence in tax matters. Despite the Assessee's inability to provide tangible proof due to personal challenges, the Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's failure to counter the Assessee's contentions effectively. The ruling underscored the necessity for the Revenue to disprove the Assessee's claims conclusively to justify additions under section 69 for unexplained deposits. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision favored the Assessee, considering the totality of the circumstances and the lack of substantive evidence against the Assessee's explanations.