Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to an addition of Rs. 60,10,000/-, treated as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed the source was funds received from his father, who in turn received compensation for land acquisition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, making his explanation questionable. The fragmented pattern of deposits and lack of supporting documentation for a property transaction further weakened the claim.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee are unexplained under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, and if the explanation provided regarding the source is satisfactory.
Sections Cited
147, 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Shri Krishan Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 308/1, Old Faridabad, Ward-2(3), Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. EUVPS3606D Assessee by : Sh. Ashok Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Khitesh Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.11.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073655351(1) dated 24.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.60,10,000/- in the relevant financial year 2015-16 as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act, in assessment order dated 16.01.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion reading as under:
Krishan Sharma “5. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and perused the grounds of appeal. Ground 1 to 6 of the present appeal simply pertains to the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.60,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and the same is adjudicated as under. 5.1. Now in the proceedings before me and after thoroughly reviewing all the submissions made by the appellant. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and the materials available on record. The primary issue under consideration is the addition of Rs.60,10,000/- made by the AO under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money. The appellant has contended that the source of the cash deposits was the amount received from his father, who, in turn, had received compensation of Rs.1,90,78,000/- from a Government Authority for land acquisition. The appellant further claimed that his father withdrew Rs.72,00,000/- from his bank account on 11/05/2015 and subsequently handed over the same to the appellant, purportedly for the purpose of purchasing property. However, as the alleged property transaction did not materialize, the appellant claims to have re-deposited the sum in his bank account in multiple tranches over a period of time. The details of cash deposits made by the appellant is as under:- S. No. Date Amount Amount Cash Remarks Withdrawal (Rs.) Deposited (Rs.) 1 07/05/2015 - 3,000.00 Cash deposited out of accumulated savings 2 13/05/2015 - 10,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 3 14/05/2015 - 10,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 4 29/05/2015 20,00,000.00 - Cash withdrawn from earlier deposited to his SB Account 5 03/06/2015 - 20,00,000.00 Cash re-deposited out of cash withdrawal on 29/05/2015 6 11/06/2015 - 3,000.00 Cash deposited out of accumulated savings 7 07/08/2015 - 3,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 Krishan Sharma 8 19/08/2015 - 10,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 9 03/09/2015 - 7,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015
5.2. Upon careful consideration of the facts, evidence, and arguments presented, the appellant has put forth the explanation that the source of the cash deposit amounting to Rs.60,10,000/- was a sum received from his father, who had allegedly received Rs.1,90,78,000/- as land compensation from a Government Authority. However, this claim remains wholly unsubstantiated due to the complete lack of documentary evidence. The appellant has failed to provide any supporting documents such as government payment records, or any other conclusive proof demonstrating that his father actually received the alleged land compensation. In the absence of such corroborative evidence, the very foundation of the appellant's explanation is rendered questionable. Furthermore, even if it were to be assumed, merely for argument's sake and without admission, that the appellant's father had indeed received the said land compensation, the appellant has not demonstrated any credible flow of funds from his father to himself. Mere oral assertions, unaccompanied by documentary proof, do not hold any evidentiary value. Moreover, given the substantial amount involved, it would be expected that if the money was indeed transferred by the appellant's father, a formal gift deed or at least a confirmation letter would have been executed. However, the appellant has failed to provide any such supporting document that could substantiate his claim. This glaring omission raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the appellant's version of events. Further, the appellant has also not disclosed any details regarding whether the interest component on the alleged land compensation received by his father was duly offered to tax. In cases of land acquisition compensation, a significant portion often comprises interest, which is taxable under the provisions of the Act. However, the appellant has not submitted any records to demonstrate that such interest income was accounted for in his father’s tax returns. This further weakens the appellant's case and casts doubt on the authenticity of the overall transaction. Another notable inconsistency in the appellant’s explanation is the manner in which the deposits were Krishan Sharma made. Instead of re-depositing the entire sum in one instance, as would be expected if the amount was truly meant for purchasing property and was later returned, the appellant has made multiple staggered deposits over an extended period. This fragmented pattern of deposits is not in alignment with his stated claim, as a genuine property transaction would have likely resulted in a single or at most a few consolidated deposits. The lack of a logical sequence in the deposit pattern adds to the suspicion surrounding the appellant's claims. Additionally, the appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish the existence of an intended property purchase. No sale agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, or correspondence with any party regarding a potential transaction has been submitted. In the absence of such critical documentation, the assertion that the money was meant for a property transaction appears to be an afterthought rather than a bona fide explanation. Under the provisions of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, the onus is entirely upon the appellant to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of cash deposits in his bank account. In the present case, the appellant has utterly failed to do so. His explanation is based solely on unverified assertions, without any corroborating evidence. The lack of substantiation strongly suggests that the explanation is nothing more than a fabricated story, constructed with the intention of evading tax liability on unexplained cash deposits. Therefore, given the inconsistencies, contradictions, and complete absence of documentary proof, the explanation offered by the appellant cannot be accepted. In view of the foregoing discussion, the addition of Rs.60,10,000/- made by the AO under Section 69A of the Act is found to be justified and is accordingly confirmed. Accordingly, all the ground raised by the appellant stands dismissed.
6. In the result the appeal is Dismissed.” 3.1. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed his instant appeal before the tribunal.
Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. The assessee has further filed his detailed paper book Krishan Sharma running into 96 pages comprising all the relevant case records. A perusal thereof indicates that the assessee is a son of Sh. Bhim Singh and Smt. Kripa Devi. And that his father who has left for his heavenly abode on 01.11.2022. He appears to have sold/transferred his agricultural land(s) to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (“NOIDA”) for Rs.1,00,45,200/- vide registered deed executed in March 2015 i.e. on 26.03.2015. The assessee has further filed his bank statement as well indicating the impugned cash deposits post facto the above sale deed. His case therefore before both the learned lower authorities has been that Sh. Bhim Singh had first withdrawn cash which stood re-deposited in his account forming subject matter of the impugned addition.
The Revenue could hardly dispute that going by family traditions, possibility of a father’s cash withdrawals to be deposited in his son’s bank account(s) could not be all together ruled out as well. The fact however remains that the assessee has not discharged his onus to this effect to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. We accordingly are of the considered view that a lump sum addition of Rs.10,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.