JAI SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO WARD-1, REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3614/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 November 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee's explanations were found to be self-serving and lacked cogency, and no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate the source of the funds.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- to the assessee's income as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. The assessee's explanations, including gifts from family members and return of withdrawn funds, were not supported by documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 16,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account was adequately explained and supported by evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri B.M. Singh, Senior DR
Hearing: 26.10.2022

(PAN : BUUPS6461E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 26.10.2022 Date of Order : 02.11.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals), Rohtak dated 12.02.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The issue raised is that ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.16,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that in this case, AO had information that assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- in the bank account. After enquiry from the assessee, AO concluded that for Rs.16,00,000/- cash deposit, there was no proper explanation. Hence, he made the addition of the said amount.

4.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) found that assessee’s explanation was not cogent. He sustained the addition by observing as under :-

“5.2 During the appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted explanation for deposit of Rs 16 lacs of cash in his account as discussed in his submissions at para 4 above. However, no documentary evidence has been furnished in this regard. The benefit of withdrawals made and re-deposited has already been given by the AO in the assessment proceedings. As regards gift from his brother Rohtash Singh of Rs 3.5 lacs, the assessee has submitted that he is a farmer with 7-8 acres of agricultural land. This is not enough evidence as creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction are not established. Similarly, gift of Rs 4.5 lacs from wife is also not proven as the assessee has submitted that she is doing the work of animal husbandry and is having 7-8 acres of land and that she is earning from sale of milk and agricultural products. Again no documentary evidence in this respect has been furnished by the assessee to establish the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. As regards the assessee's submission that amount of Rs 8 lacs was withdrawn on 09.11.2011, 26.11.2011 and 12.12.2011 and given to his brother for construction but was received back and deposited in the bank account, the same has already been considered by the AO at page 5 of the assessment order and this benefit cannot be given again to the assessee. Thus, it is seen that the assessee has failed to establish the source of Rs 16 lacs deposited in his bank a/c.”

5.

Thereafter ld. CIT (A) referred to certain case laws and upheld the addition made by the AO.

6.

Against his order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have the ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. The notice served have returned unserved.

7.

Upon careful consideration and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the cash deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- has been rightly held by Revenue authorities as unexplained. The assessee’s explanations are only self-serving statements devoid of cogency. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A).

8.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →