Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs. 16 Lacs during demonetization period. To justify this, the assessee claimed it was repayment of a loan given years earlier to Shri Radhey Shyam Khemka, who had subsequently expired, and his son paid back the amount. The AO added this amount as unexplained cash deposit, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the statutory onus by not providing crucial documents like contact details, confirmation letters, ITRs, and bank accounts to substantiate the source of the deposits. Therefore, there was no perversity in the orders of the authorities below.
Key Issues
Whether the deposit of Rs. 16 Lacs by the assessee during demonetization period was sufficiently substantiated and explained as per the legal requirements.
Sections Cited
139(4), VI-A, 68, 115BBE, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S.SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 26.06.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. That the addition of Rs. 16, 00,000.00 as unexplained cash deposit is without any basis and deserves to be set aside.
That the assessee craves to add, alter, amend and/or delete any ground of appeal during appeal proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 28.03.2018 u/s. 139(4) of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 8,49,520/- after availing deduction of Rs. 35,894/- under chapter VI-A and declared agricultural income at Rs. 90,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued. During the year under consideration the assessee was an employee with a company M/s. Aravali Glass Co. and derived salary in addition to income from house property and interest. During the demonetization period the assessee deposited Rs. 16 Lacs in his two bank accounts with Bank of Baroda as per para 4 of the assessment order. After a detailed deliberation during the assessment proceedings between the assessee and the AO, ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed after making an addition of Rs. 16 Lacs u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee being further aggrieved with this order preferred the present appeal before us.
3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that out of total six hearings none appeared before us, hence there is no option left with us except to adjudicate the same based on material available on record before us, although a power attorney in favour of CA Jinesh Kumar Jain is there on record. It is observed that as mentioned (supra) during the year under consideration the assessee deposited a total of Rs. 16 Lacs in his two bank accounts and to justify the same the assessee submitted that he gave security deposit to M/s. Him Neel Breweries Ltd. on behalf of Shri Radhey Shyam Khemka, with whom he had a business and personal relationship. The assessee gave this loan on 07.05.1997 and 15.05.1997 amounting to Rs. 5 Lacs and 7.5 Lacs respectively. On this amount the assessee’s interest was Rs. 1,58,805/- and commission due from M/s. Him Neel Breweries Ltd. for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1999 was Rs. 1,91,867/-. Total was 16, 00,672/- (Rs. 12.5 Lacs + Rs. 1, 58,805/- + Rs. 1, 91,867/-). Although there is no evidence of disclosure of income of Rs. 1, 58,805/- as interest and Rs. 1, 91,867/- as commission earned and declared in the respective period ITR.
4. As per the assessee, Shri Radhey Shyam Khemka became sick and ultimately expired. But during the period of his sickness, he asked his son Shri Laxmi Kant Khemka to repay the debt as his last wish and Shri Laxmi Kant Khemka paid the same on 05.11.2016 and 07.11.2016 an amount of Rs. 6 Lacs and 10 Lacs respectively. To substantiate the same the authorities below asked for the contact details, complete name, postal address, contact nos. & email-ids of persons from whom cash was received by the assessee. In addition to this they asked for a confirmation letter, a copy of ITR & Bank accounts as proof of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. None of these documents were ever furnished by the assessee before the AO and the Ld. CIT (A) and before us also.
5. We found the documents asked for by the authorities below of utmost importance to establish the genuineness of the transaction and to establish the source of the deposits made by the assessee. As narrated above, none of those documents were ever filed by the assessee; he failed to discharge the statutory onus on him. In the light of the above facts, we don’t see any perversity in the order of the authorities below and their orders are confirmed without any modification. Grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 17th day of April 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 17/04/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. आयकर आयु� CIT 3. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file.