Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order treating cash deposits of Rs. 14,50,000/- in his bank account for the assessment year 2014-15 as unexplained. The assessee claimed these deposits were from a partnership firm, Herbal India, involved in herb cultivation.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and source of the cash deposits. While the assessee's claim of a partnership firm was not adequately explained, the Tribunal considered the possibility of accumulated past family savings.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account were unexplained, and if the assessee had sufficiently proved the source of these deposits?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053342163(1) dated 31.05.2023, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits in the bank account made in the relevant previous year 2013-14 amounting to Rs.14,50,000/-; as unexplained on account of his alleged failure to explain the source thereof. Learned counsel invited attention to the assessee’s detailed paper book running into 198 pages.
His case is that the impugned cash deposits, in fact, are the result of partnership firm, namely Herbal India, set up by the assessee along with other partners so as to do the business of herbs’ cultivation in their agricultural lands. He further buttresses the point that the assessee could not be charged as having not explained source of cash deposits once he had filed all the relevant evidence.
Learned DR, on the other hand, places strong reliance on both the lower authorities’ respective findings making the impugned addition.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s rival stands and find no case in the farmer’s favour. This is for the precise reason that once he had made the impugned cash deposits; it was his bounden duty to explain the genuineness thereof which he has failed even to prove the source of the transactions. His stand by some concocted story(ies) could hardly be accepted on the test of human probabilities in light of Sumati Dayal v/s CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) as he has not been able to explain the foregoing plea of partnership firm.
The fact however remains that possibility of some accumulated past 2 | P a g e savings of his family members could also not be ruled out keeping in mind the assessee’s socio-economic status. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant a lump sum relief of Rs.10,00,000/- in these peculiar facts and the remaining addition of Rs.64,50,000/- is upheld in very terms. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2025.