2017 (6) TMI 134 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits in the bank account - source of advance money receipt - Held that - Assessee failed to produce any evidence if any genuine agreement to sell was executed for taking advance of ₹ 22,00,000/- and also failed to produce any source of the receipt of advance of ₹ 22,00,000/-. No confirmation from the purchaser was filed and the purchaser was not produce to verify receipt of advance of ₹ 22,00,000/-. The GPA holder has already shown his inability to produce nay documentary evidence of source and mode of payment of advance money. The assessee therefore miserably failed to explain the source of advance money receipt of ₹ 22,00,000/- from Shri Kulbir Singh. No documentary evidence is also filed before the Tribunal to substantiate the explanation filed before the authorities below. The contention and case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee would not support the case of the assessee because the genuineness of the agreement to sell itself is in doubt and assessee also failed to explain the source of the cash deposits of ₹ 21,54,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. No interference is therefore called for in the matter. It may also be noted here that regarding rest of the amount deposited as cash in the bank account of the assessee, Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not argue the appeal and did not produce any evidence in this regard. In my view assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits in his bank account to the extent of ₹ 29,12,240/-, therefore, the appeal of the assessee has no merit the same is accordingly dismissed. - Decided in favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
Explanation of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, Failure to produce documentary evidence, Failure to explain the source of advance money receipt.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee had made cash deposits totaling &8377; 52,91,000 with Bank of India during the relevant assessment year. The AO added &8377; 29,12,240 to the total income of the assessee as the source of this amount was not satisfactorily explained. The assessee claimed to be an agriculturist earning from agricultural income but failed to provide substantial evidence supporting the source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of explaining the cash deposits satisfactorily. The appellant's failure to produce relevant evidence supporting the agriculture activity and sale of produce led to the confirmation of the addition.

Regarding a specific deposit of &8377; 21,54,000, the appellant claimed it was an advance against the sale of land, which was forfeited later. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the contention that the forfeited amount was a capital receipt and should not be added. However, the authorities maintained that the issue was about unexplained cash deposits, and the appellant's failure to provide evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's inability to produce documentary evidence regarding the sale of land, including the sale deed, confirmation of the purchaser, and source of payment, resulted in the confirmation of the addition.

The appellant's arguments and case law were deemed insufficient to support the case as the genuineness of the agreement to sell was in doubt, and the source of the cash deposits remained unexplained. The appellant's failure to provide evidence regarding the advance money receipt and the lack of confirmation from the purchaser led to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's overall failure to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not substantiated the explanations provided and failed to prove the legitimacy of the cash deposits, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.