9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash in hand to make the cash deposits in his bank account. In the case of C. Vamsi Mohan [2015 (3) TMI 1236 - ITAT HYDERABAD] held that said withdrawal having been made by the assessee just before a week, the same can reasonably be treated as available with the assessee for cash deposit especially when there is nothing to show that the said amount was utilized by the assessee for some other purpose. In the case of ITO v. Deepali Sehga [2014 (9) TMI 1073 - ITAT DELHI] it was held that merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and its further deposit to the bank account, the amount cannot be treated as income from undisclosed sources under Section 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. In view of the facts of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming addition Rs. 17 lakhs towards cash deposits in Bank account as unexplained sources u/s 69A of the Act. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 17 lakhs towards cash deposits in Bank account as unexplained sources u/s 69A of the Act." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is deriving income from pension and other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- on 11.11.2016 and another cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 06.12.2016 in State Bank of India, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and added a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by the Assessing Officer with the following observations: "6.1 During the assessment proceedings the AO found that assessee made two cash deposits in his SB account during demonetization period. The first cash deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs was made on 11.11.2016 and the second cash deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs was made on 06.12.2016. When asked to explain the sources the assessee replied that he was planning to purchase property worth Rs. 40 lakhs for the purpose of running dental clinic by his son and therefore he claimed to have accumulated cash however the purchase did not materialise and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y dismissed. In support of the decision the undersigned relies on the following case laws, wherein it has been held that burden of proof in respect of cash credits lies on the assessee only. 1. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 323 (Madhya Pradesh)[03-04-2023]Smriti Television Media and Films (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 2. [2023] 148 taxpann.com 4B3 (Calcutta)|13-02-023] Sarhaddar Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income -tax 3. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 18 (Karnataka) [10-02-2023] Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rajesh Exports Ltd. 4. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad)[29-11-2017] Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 7. As a result, appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions and perused the material on record. 9. It is a well settled law that if the assessee is able to show that it had made cash withdrawals from which the deposits were made, then it would be reasonable to infer that the source of cash deposits was from the cash withdrawals made by the assessee, unless, the Revenue is able to establish that there was a specific expenditure incurred by the assessee as a consequence to which the assessee was not in a position to/did not have adequate cash in hand to make the cash deposits in his bank account. In the case of Pesto Chem India Ltd. 108 TAXMAN 310 (DELHI), the assessee-company had shown certain withdrawals by its directors from petty account to meet business expenses to which assessee expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h cash withdrawal and deposit were duly substantiated from bank statement of very same branch of bank and there was no findings by lower authorities that cash available with assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose, cash so deposited could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. In the case of Jaspal Singh Sehgal 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.), where the assessee submitted detailed cash summary showing inflow and outflow of cash for relevant year, in absence of any materials to show that cash withdrawn was utilised elsewhere by assessee, benefit of cash withdrawn by assessee from bank account against amount of cash deposit into bank should be given. In the case of Smt. Krishna Agarwal v. ITO in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
