Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was filed against the order treating cash deposits of Rs.12,40,000/- as unexplained cash credits. The assessee had withdrawn Rs.14,00,000/- between June 2008 and February 2009, which were re-deposited in AY 2011-12.
Held
While a prima facie presumption arose in favor of the assessee that the withdrawn cash might not have been used, the assessee failed to discharge her onus to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. Thus, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was made without treating it as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits re-deposited in AY 2011-12, which were withdrawn earlier by the assessee, can be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
68, 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
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078363939(1) dated 10.07.2025, 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, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities respective findings have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,40,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68; in assessment order dated 19.12.2018 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Geetika Singh 4. That being the case, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessment discussion at page 2 in para 4 that the assessee had withdrawn a total amount of Rs.14,00,000/- right from June 2008 upto February 2009 on various instances which stood re-deposited in the impugned assessment year 2011-12 forming subject matter of adjudication. He could hardly dispute that although a necessary prima facie presumption indeed arise in her favour that the said entire cash withdrawn could not be used, but, at the same time, she has failed to discharge her onus to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.11,40,000/- in other words.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.