Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2012-13, challenging the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The lower authorities treated certain cash deposits as unexplained, despite the assessee providing a cash flow statement and claiming an opening balance.
Held
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly substantiate the impugned addition, brushing aside the assessee's submissions regarding opening cash balance. The action of treating cash deposits as unexplained was found to be without merit.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities have correctly treated the assessee's cash deposits as unexplained without proper substantiation and in disregard of the assessee's submissions.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gurbachan Lal, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1126, Sector-23A, Ward-1(3), Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHPPB0871L Assessee by: Sh. Sandeep Kumar Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049279322(1) dated 31.01.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties regarding correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.14,58,000/- as unexplained to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- only, in the course of assessment framed on 25.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. The CIT(A)/NFAC appears to have adjudicated the same as follows:
Gurbanchan Lal “5.2 The addition made by the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the appellant have been examined. It is seen that the appellant claimed withdrawal of Rs.9,50,000/- as on 10.06.2010 as the amount available as on 01.04.2022 is not justifiable, as the appellant kept on withdrawing amount of Rs.3,50,000/- even subsequently and out of which Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited back leaving balance out of the Rs.11,00,000/- and claiming Rs.6,58,000/- as opening balance. The appellant did not explain as to why such huge cash was withdrawn and the purpose for which it is drawn. In view of the long gap the claim is not acceptable. Therefore, the order of the AO is sustained and the grounds raised in this regard are dismissed. 5.3 With regard to re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the AO has obtained approval from the Pr. CIT, Faridabad, which has been mentioned in the assessment order. It is also seen that the appellant has not raised the issue of re-opening and the reasons for such re-opening before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The primary onus lies on the appellant to explain the cash deposits made in the bank account. Since, the appellant failed to explain the cash deposits, the AO has rightly passed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. As such, the contention of the appellant that the re-opening is bad in law is rejected.”
4. Suffice to say, it is already come on record that not only the assessee has withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/- on 10.06.2010 which followed subsequent withdrawal but also the learned lower authorities have simply brushed aside his submissions of having opening cash of Rs.6,58,000/- going by the cash flow statement, without substantiating the impugned addition. That being the case, I find no merit in the learned lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained which is directed to be deleted.