2022 (5) TMI 1010 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant and brought to tax u/s 69A - onus to believe - HELD THAT - Despite the fact that Sh.Kartar Singh was present before the ld.CIT(A) he was denied to record his statement in support of the claim of the assessee that Sh. Kartar Singh gave him cash against purchase of car owned by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that in the block of assets the assessee has shown a car Ford Fiesta with Regn. No.HR51AC0551 and written down value of such car as on 01.04.2009. These facts have remained uncontroverted as the assessee claimed depreciation on the car and the same was allowed by the AO. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, reach to a logical conclusion that the assessee submitted all possible evidence under his command to explain the source of cash deposit in his bank account as the amount received by the assessee against sale of car is much higher than the impugned amount - AO as well as the CIT(A) without allowing recording of statement of Shri Kartar Singh and without considering the aforementioned and other evidence submitted by the assessee in this regard have proceeded to make and confirm addition in the hands of the assessee which is not justified and reasonable and a right approach of tax officers. Therefore, we are compelled to hold that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) has no legs to stand on the sound principles of tax jurisprudence. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the same. Grounds No.2 to 2.4 of the assessee is allowed. Addition on Lumpsum basis representing unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign travel - whether assessee has successfully demonstrated the source of such expenditure? - HELD THAT - Onus lie on the shoulders of the person or entity who made the foreign visit. In the present case, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee explained that the expenses incurred towards his foreign travel to Dubai was incurred by his friend, but, no evidence, confirmation or documentary evidence was submitted before the authorities below to substantiate that the expenditure was incurred by the friend of the assessee. Even during the first appellate proceedings, the name of the friend was stated as Shri Munish Uppal but no supporting evidence in the form of confirmation, affidavit and purpose was explained. Therefore, the authorities below were right in making the addition in the hands of the assessee in this regard. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) towards unexplained expenditure on foreign travel to Dubai is correct and sustainable. Accordingly, ground No.3 of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign travel by the assessee.

Issue 1: Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 7,57,450 as unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee argued that the notice under section 131 of the Act was not complied with by Shri Kartar Singh, leading to a failure to appreciate the cash deposited against the sale of an old car. The counsel presented various documentary evidence, including an affidavit from Shri Kartar Singh, explaining the transaction. The tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus by submitting substantial evidence, and the authorities had not adequately considered the explanations and evidence provided. Consequently, the tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, as it lacked a reasonable and justified basis.

Issue 2: Unexplained Expenditure on Foreign Travel:
Regarding the addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained expenditure on foreign travel, the assessee contended that the expenses were covered by a friend. However, no concrete evidence or confirmation was provided to support this claim. The tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to substantiate the source of the expenditure, which was not adequately done. As a result, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed correct and sustainable. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition related to unexplained cash deposits while upholding the addition concerning unexplained expenditure on foreign travel. The tribunal did not adjudicate on an additional ground due to the major relief granted to the assessee on the merits.