2020 (6) TMI 235 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on unexplained cash deposits by the assessee in Central Bank of India - HELD THAT - Perusal of the remand report which is reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A) reveals that during the remand proceedings, Arjun Bhimrao, the father of the assessee stated that he owned agricultural land and had agricultural income of ₹ 4 to 5 lakhs per year. After considering the submission of assessee s father Arjun Bhimrao, AO has noted that the total cash availability for two years was about ₹ 8 lakhs. To the extent of ₹ 8 lakhs, the cash deposits in Central Bank of India by the assessee stands explained. Therefore, direct the deletion of addition to the extent of ₹ 8 lakhs. Before me for the balance addition of ₹ 2,17,000/- since no explanation has been offered by Ld.A.R. nor has he pointed to any error / fallacy in the findings of lower authorities, uphold the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,17,000/-. - Decided in favour of assessee partly.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts for assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12.
2. The assessee had deposited cash in two bank accounts and failed to explain the source of deposits to the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. The AO made additions under sections 69A and 69C of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash deposits.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partially confirmed the addition of ?10,17,000 out of the total deposits of ?14,17,000.
5. During the appeal before the Tribunal, the father of the assessee stated that he had agricultural income of ?4 to ?5 lakhs per year, explaining the source of ?8 lakhs out of the total deposits.
6. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of ?8 lakhs from the addition, as it was explained by the father's agricultural income, and confirmed the addition of ?2,17,000 for which no explanation was provided.
7. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of ?8 lakhs and upholding the addition of ?2,17,000.
8. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the decision rendered by the Tribunal.