2018 (11) TMI 1316 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits - Withdrawal of amount from the bank account for the F.Y. 2009-10 - Held that - The assessee has not filed any corroborative evidence and also not explained what is the purpose of withdrawal and why the same is deposited in the bank account on the same day in different amounts. Therefore, the AO has not believed the explanation of the assessee that the amount deposited on 06/11/2009 is the amount withdrawn on 19/11/2009. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) has observed that subsequent to the withdrawal of ₹ 4,55,000/- on 19/09/2009, the assessee has also withdrawn an amount of ₹ 40.00 lakhs on 07/07/2009. Therefore, the assessee has utilised the amount of ₹ 4,55,000/- and after utilising the above amount, again she withdrawn ₹ 40.00 lakhs therefore, the deposits made by the assessee again on 06/11/2009 cannot be considered the same amount as withdrawn on 19/09/2009 deposited. Before us, assessee is not explained what is the purpose of withdrawal and again deposited the same on 06/11/2009 in two differential amounts i.e. ₹ 3,88,000/- & ₹ 1,12,000/- - we are of the opinion that the amount deposited on 06/11/2009 cannot be considered the same amount she was withdrawn on 19/09/2009. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Withdrawal amount from bank account for FY 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2010-11 regarding the withdrawal amount of ?4,55,000 from the bank account for the financial year 2009-10. The assessee, an individual engaged in share trading, had not filed an income tax return initially. The Assessing Officer noted cash deposits and withdrawals, including a withdrawal of ?4,55,000 on 19/09/2009. The assessee explained that the withdrawn amount was redeposited, but the Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, emphasizing subsequent large withdrawals and lack of evidence for the redeposited amount.

During the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee argued that the redeposited amount should not be considered unexplained cash credits since it was withdrawn and redeposited. However, the Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decisions. The ITAT examined the case, noting the lack of corroborative evidence for the redeposited amount and the purpose behind the withdrawal and redeposit. Considering the subsequent large withdrawal of ?40.00 lakhs, the ITAT concluded that the redeposited amount could not be equated with the initial withdrawal. As the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the amount as unexplained cash credits, dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the ITAT dismissed the appeal by the assessee, upholding the decision to treat the redeposited amount of ?4,55,000 as unexplained cash credits due to insufficient evidence and lack of clarity regarding the purpose of withdrawal and redeposit. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the subsequent large withdrawal made by the assessee and the absence of supporting documentation for the redeposited amount.