VIRENDER SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO, REWARI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 22.02.2024, for assessment year 2012-13.

Shri Vikas Mishra, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is serving in Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). The case of the assesseee for AY 2012-13 was reopened on the ground that he had deposited cash amounting to Rs.15,38,000/- during the period relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13 in his bank account maintained with State Bank of India, and no income tax return for the (AY 2012-13) relevant period was filed by the assessee. During proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee explained the source of the cash deposits. The CIT(A) partly accepted explanation furnished by the assessee and deleted addition to the extent of Rs.7,36,500/- and confirmed the remaining amount of Rs.8,01,500/- on presumptive and estimated basis. The assessee has filed appeal against the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel submits that during the relevant period, the assessee had deposited cash in bank on five dates as under:- S.No Date Deposits 1 31.05.2011 49000 2 01.06.2011 49000 3 03.06.2011 500000 4 10.12.2011 150000 5(a) 28.03.2012 500000 5(b) 28.03.2012 290000

The amounts deposited on 31.05.20211, 01.06.2011 and 03.06.2011 were inherited by the assessee and the cash deposited on 10.12.2011 and 28.03.2012 (Rs.5,00,000/- +Rs.2,90,000/-) were from the amounts earlier withdrawn from the bank. To substantiate his contention, he placed on record bank statements. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus prayed for deleting entire addition confirmed by the CIT(A).

Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defended findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee to the extent the assessee has been able to substantiate source of cash deposits and has confirmed the balance amount. The CIT(A) has been fair and liberal in (AY 2012-13) granting relief to the assessee. No further cash deposits can be deleted as the assessee has failed to substantiate source of cash deposits in the bank.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary issue in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.8,01,500/- confirmed by the CIT(A) in respect of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposit as from past savings/inheritance, redeposit of amount withdrawn earlier for personal expenditure. Since, the assessee failed to make any submissions before the AO, the AO had made addition of the entire amount i.e. Rs.15,38,000/- deposited during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.7,36,500/-. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal seeking relief on the amount confirmed by the CIT(A) i.e. Rs.8,01,500/- After having perused the impugned order, I am of considered view that the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable, however, the CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee has failed to take note of the fact that the assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of November out of which Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited in December 2011. The proximity of amount withdrawn and deposits makes the submissions of the assessee plausible, hence, further relief of Rs.1,50,000/- is allowed to the assessee. As regards initial three deposits aggregating to Rs. 5,98,000/- is concerned, the assesee has not explained the source of past savings or the details of inheritance. The assessee is inconsistent in explaining the source of initial deposits of Rs.5,98,000/- and has failed to discharge his onus in explaining source of such cash deposits. Therefore, addition of Rs.5,98,000/- is confirmed . As regards deposits in the month of March 2012, again (AY 2012-13) the assessee has failed to substantiate source of such cash deposits, hence, no relief can be allowed to the assessee on said cash deposits.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 15th day of April, 2025.