AKHTAR RASOOL,MORADABAD vs. ACIT - 2, MORADABAD

The appellant contended that amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/ The appellant contended that amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- The appellant contended that amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/ was withdrawn by employee of the appellant named s withdrawn by employee of the appellant named s withdrawn by employee of the appellant named Deepak which was unnecessarily disputed by AO claiming Deepak which was unnecessarily disputed by AO claiming Deepak which was unnecessarily disputed by AO claiming that employee of the appellant named Deepak is a that employee of the appellant named Deepak is a that employee of the appellant named Deepak is a different person than the person named Deepak who has different person than the person named Deepak who has different person than the person named Deepak who has withdrawn withdrawn withdrawn from from from bank. The appellant submitted that bank. The appellant submitted that bank. The appellant submitted that Deepak has a paternal house in Sambhal but due to job eepak has a paternal house in Sambhal but due to job eepak has a paternal house in Sambhal but due to job he resides in Moradabad. Therefore, he was issued two he resides in Moradabad. Therefore, he was issued two he resides in Moradabad. Therefore, he was issued two Voter Ids one at Sambhal address and one at Moradabad Voter Ids one at Sambhal address and one at Moradabad Voter Ids one at Sambhal address and one at Moradabad Address. Further, the appellant contended that AO has not Address. Further, the appellant contended that AO has not Address. Further, the appellant contended that AO has not brought any cogent material on record brought any cogent material on record to prove that cash to prove that cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,40,00,000/ withdrawal of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was paid to some other was paid to some other person and cash was re person and cash was re-deposited in the bank was from deposited in the bank was from undisclosed sources. undisclosed sources. 6.2.1 The contention made by appellant is without any The contention made by appellant is without any The contention made by appellant is without any merit in it. Firstly, the appellant has claimed tha merit in it. Firstly, the appellant has claimed that he merit in it. Firstly, the appellant has claimed tha withdrew cash of Rs.1,56,00,000/ withdrew cash of Rs.1,56,00,000/- from 03.11.2016 to from 03.11.2016 to Akhtar Rasool 05.11.2016 to make cash payment to his suppliers/kharkanedars. However, it is noticed that on 03.11.2015 opening cash balance of the appellant was Rs.53,53,684/-. His expense on 03/11/2016 was Rs.9,67,570/- which indicates that, had there been no cash withdrawal, appellant’s opening cash in hand was more than sufficient to meet the expenses. His expense on 04/11/2016 and 05/11/2016 were Rs. 10,12,520/- and Rs.8,95,720/- respectively. His cash expense till 08/11/2016 were as below: Date Amount of cash expense 06/11/016 Rs.40,000/- 07/11/2016 Rs.9,02,898/- 08/11/2016 Rs.35,460/- 09/11/2019 Rs.14,785/- From the above, it can be seen that maximum cash expenditure the appellant incurred was on 07.11.2016 amounting to Rs. 9,02,898/-. The above facts do not justify cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- on mere three days before demonetization for the purpose of business payment to suppliers as claimed by the appellant. Further, the appellant has claimed that AO has unnecessarily doubted about the identity of Deepak claiming that Deepak, employee of the appellant and Deepak, who withdrew cash from bank are different persons. The contention of the appellant is without any substance in it. The Voter ID submitted by the appellant was compared with the Voter ID provided by bank and following discrepancies were found by the AO: cards following discrepancies were found:

From the above, it is clear that both persons are diffe From the above, it is clear that both persons are different From the above, it is clear that both persons are diffe as both have different date of births, different addresses, as both have different date of births, different addresses, as both have different date of births, different addresses, different signatures and different photos in ID cards. different signatures and different photos in ID cards. different signatures and different photos in ID cards. Therefore, is clear that Deepak who withdrew the cash Therefore, is clear that Deepak who withdrew the cash Therefore, is clear that Deepak who withdrew the cash from bank or to whom payment was made is different from bank or to whom payment was made is different from bank or to whom payment was made is different person from Deepak who is emplo person from Deepak who is employee of the appellant. yee of the appellant. Moreover, Moreover, Moreover, the the the appellant appellant appellant has has has not not not submitted submitted submitted any any any documentary evidences in support of his claim that both documentary evidences in support of his claim that both documentary evidences in support of his claim that both persons are same and two Voter Ids were issued to the persons are same and two Voter Ids were issued to the persons are same and two Voter Ids were issued to the same person due to different residences one in Sambhal same person due to different residences one in Sambhal same person due to different residences one in Sambhal and and one one in in Moradabad. Moradabad. The The onus onus of of proving proving the the genuineness and correctness of the documents filed by genuineness and correctness of the documents filed by genuineness and correctness of the documents filed by the appellant lied on him. However, the appellant has the appellant lied on him. However, the appellant has the appellant lied on him. However, the appellant has failed to do so in this case. failed to do so in this case. The appellant’s contention that due to clerical mistakes, The appellant’s contention that due to clerical mistakes, The appellant’s contention that due to clerical mistakes, discrepancies are reported in Voter discrepancies are reported in Voter Ids, does not pass the Ids, does not pass the test test test of of of human human human probability probability probability as as as there there there are are are multiple multiple multiple discrepancies namely DOB, address, signatures, photos. discrepancies namely DOB, address, signatures, photos. discrepancies namely DOB, address, signatures, photos.

Akhtar Rasool From the above facts, it is clear that the argument submitted by the appellant that the cash deposited in banks during the demonetization period was out of cash withdrawals is not correct as the appellant has failed to link the cash deposit with cash withdrawals. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Smt. Kavita Chandra vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [2017] 81 taxmann.com 317 (Punjab & Haryana)[07-03- 2017] held that "Cash withdrawals were made for purpose of business and same was not available for redeposit and, assessee was unable to link cash withdrawn from bank to cash deposit, same would be held to be assessee's unexplained income". In case of Parveen Kumar vs. Commissioner of Income- tax, Ludhiana [2019] 110 taxmann.com 256 (Punjab &Haryana)[16-03-2018], the Hon’ble Punjab &Haryana High Court held where there was no specific evidence to explain assessee's stand that amount deposited in bank was actually his salary/income that was withdrawn earlier and rotated from time to time and that same was re- deposited in cash, addition made as undisclosed income was justified. 6.2.2 In view of the above discussion and above mentioned judicial pronouncements, I am of the view that AO has rightly made addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, addition made by AO is confirmed. Ground No. 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 6.3 Further, the contention of appellant raised in Ground No. 4 of the appeal is without any merit in it. As per Provisions of Section 115BBE, where the total income of an assessee determined by the AO includes any income referred to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or sec 69D of the Act, the said income shall be charged to Income Tax at sixty percent. Accordingly, as per provisions of the Act, the said objection of the appellant stands rejected. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is dismissed.”