2021 (10) TMI 1193 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained deposits in bank - Withdrawal of cash from bank and re-deposit of the same into the bank account - contention of the assessee i.e. withdrawn the money for the purpose of giving advance to the landlords and since the land deal could not materialize, the amount had been re-deposited back into his bank accounts - HELD THAT - Withdrawal of cash has been accepted by the AO. In such scenario, unless the AO is able to show that the assessee has been able to utilize this withdrawn cash for some investment/undisclosed expenses of the same/like amount, we infer that the assessee has been able to show that money re-deposited in the bank account of the withdrawn/like amount, so the assessee's contention need to be accepted without any rebutted material to suggest otherwise. DR could not rebut/controvert the cash flow statement vis- -vis the bank statements filed - The assessee had enough money in his bank as disclosed, therefore, no addition u/s. 68 of the Act was warranted in this case and therefore, the assessee succeeds and since the assessee has been able to explain the nature and source of the deposits in the bank account which has been found adversely by the Department. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?79,00,101 by the AO without considering earlier cash withdrawals and re-deposits.
2. Rejection of the cash flow statements by the AO.
3. Addition of ?79,00,101 as income from undisclosed sources based on suspicion.
4. AO's failure to provide evidence that the withdrawn amount was used elsewhere.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition of ?79,00,101 by the AO Without Considering Earlier Cash Withdrawals and Re-deposits:
The assessee contended that the AO confirmed the addition of ?79,00,101 without considering that the cash deposits were re-deposits of earlier withdrawals from the bank account. The AO noted that the assessee deposited ?89,00,101 in cash during the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee argued that these deposits were re-deposits of cash withdrawn for potential land purchases that did not materialize. The assessee provided a cash flow statement to support this claim.

2. Rejection of the Cash Flow Statements by the AO:
The AO rejected the cash flow statements provided by the assessee, which demonstrated a direct link between cash withdrawals and re-deposits. The AO accepted only ?10,00,000 as genuine and added ?79,00,101 to the assessee's income. The assessee's cash flow statement showed an opening balance from the previous year and detailed withdrawals and re-deposits, which the AO did not find credible without pointing out specific errors.

3. Addition of ?79,00,101 as Income from Undisclosed Sources Based on Suspicion:
The AO and CIT(A) added ?79,00,101 as income from undisclosed sources, suspecting the legitimacy of the cash deposits. The assessee explained that the withdrawals were intended for land purchases, and the re-deposits occurred when the deals fell through. The AO and CIT(A) did not accept this explanation due to a lack of documentary evidence supporting the intended land purchases.

4. AO's Failure to Provide Evidence that the Withdrawn Amount was Used Elsewhere:
The assessee argued that the AO failed to provide evidence that the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere instead of being re-deposited. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not rebut the cash flow statement or provide material evidence showing the withdrawn cash was used for other purposes. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sufficient disclosed income and bank balances to justify the withdrawals and re-deposits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee successfully demonstrated the source of the cash deposits through the cash flow statement and bank records. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide evidence to counter the assessee's claims. Therefore, the addition of ?79,00,101 was unwarranted, and the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. The order was pronounced on 13th October 2021.

← Previous Next →