2017 (1) TMI 1293 - AT - Income Tax

Cash credit - source of cash deposited in the bank accounts - Unexplained cash withdrawn - unexpanied payment - Held that - The assessee has filed a certificate from IDBI Bank contained at page 7 of Paper Book, reproduced earlier, which clearly shows that the amount had been withdrawn in cash of ₹ 6,00,000/- from account of assessee and the cheque was in the name of Shri Rakesh Sharma. Under such circumstances, without further enquiries it could not be inferred that the payment was made to Shri Rakesh Sharma. He was the person who had withdrawn the cash. Many times a cheque is drawn in the name of the person who is sent for withdrawing the cash. The fact whether the amount was towards any payment due from the assessee to Shri Rakesh Sharma or no is not coming out from the records and, therefore, this aspect needs verification by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer will also verify the contents of bank s certificate. Accordingly, the matter is restored on this count to the file of Assessing Officer for verification. As far as the addition out of opening balance is concerned, since the opening balance is from earlier year, therefore, addition cannot be made in the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,05,400/- is deleted. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank account
- Confirmation of addition by CIT(A)
- Discrepancy in explanation of cash deposits
- Verification of cash withdrawal details
- Addition based on opening cash balance

The judgment involves an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 2011-12. The primary issue revolves around the addition of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The Assessing Officer noted significant cash deposits in the bank account, which were not adequately explained by the assessee. The AO observed discrepancies between the reported business income and the cash deposits, leading to the addition of unexplained income. The AO highlighted the lack of concrete evidence and reasoning for the unexplained cash deposits, indicating undisclosed sources of income. The CIT(A) confirmed a substantial addition, citing discrepancies in the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits.

The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanations for the cash deposits, emphasizing the inability to justify the origin of the deposited amounts adequately. The CIT(A) specifically pointed out inconsistencies in the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the utilization of sale proceeds and cash withdrawals. The confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A) was based on the assessment of unexplained income deposited in the bank account under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The discrepancy regarding a specific cash deposit on 28.09.2010 was highlighted during the appeal. The assessee's claim of cash withdrawal was challenged based on the cheque details, leading to a confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A). The discrepancy in the explanation provided for the cash deposit raised concerns about the accuracy of the assessee's submissions, contributing to the confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A).

The judgment emphasized the importance of verifying the details of cash withdrawals, especially concerning specific transactions and cheque payments. The court directed the Assessing Officer to conduct further investigations into the cash withdrawal details, particularly regarding the cheque issued and the recipient of the funds. The need for thorough verification of the bank's certificate and additional inquiries into the cash withdrawal transactions was highlighted for a comprehensive assessment.

Regarding the addition based on the opening cash balance, the court ruled that since the opening balance was from a previous year, the addition could not be justified in the current assessment year. As a result, the addition related to the opening balance was deemed inappropriate and subsequently deleted. The judgment concluded by partially allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing further verification by the Assessing Officer and deleting the addition based on the opening cash balance.