SMT. KRISHNA BANSAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-5(1), CHANDIGARH

आदेश/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh (in short ‘CIT(A)’ dated 6..2.2018 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax At, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).

2 ITA No.484/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

3 ITA No.484/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

of Rs.20,79,000/- on account of unexplained deposits, to

the returned income of the assessee.

cash in hand available with her. The CIT(A) dismissed the

same holding that the A.O. after analysing and verifying

from the bank account of the assessee the deposits and

withdrawals made therein, the AO had found the explanation to be not plausible. The CIT(A) held that the

circumstances as brought out by the A.O. clearly showed

that the explanation of the assessee was not plausible and

that the totality of the circumstances showed that the withdrawal attributed by the assessee to the opening cash in

hand was not actually available with assessee so as to

justify the cash deposited. For the above reasons, the

Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) at page 13 of the order is as under:

“As seen above, the AO has made detailed analysis of the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits were out of opening cash balance. The withdrawal of Rs.20,00,000/- which is the primary source of the claimed cash balance was made on 11.06.2012 i.e. almost 8-9 months before the cash was deposited in the bank accounts. It is interesting to note that Chough the assessee is claiming that the said cash remained with it, ever since then, it has also taken substantial loans subsequent to this date. It is also important to note that even after the said cash withdrawal the assessee has withdrawn substantial amounts from the bank. Another very crucial fact is that the money was deposited on different dates during the year. Had the source of this money been the cash withdrawal of Rs.20,00,000/-on 11.06.2012, and the assessee decided to shelve the idea of investment and redeposit the money, the deposit would not be staggered over a period of 3 months. The

4 ITA No.484/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

circumstances as brought out by the AO clearly show that the explanation given by the assessee was not plausible. Merely making a cash withdrawal at some point of time can not solely be the basis of explaining the cash deposits in future. The totality of the circumstances shows that the said withdrawal was not available with the assessee to justify the cash deposits. Nothing has been brought on record during the appellate proceedings to controvert any of the findings of the AO, rather general observations and objections to the findings of the AO have been made. In view of these facts I see no reason to interfere with the order of the A.O.” 5. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in

appeal before us raising the following grounds:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inspite of the fact that no investment has been made by the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition, without discussing the written submission of the appellant, of Rs.20,79,000/- on account of non- explanation of sources in respect of cash deposit in bank account. Whereas the appellant has explained that the said amount was withdrawn from the bank account of appellant few months ago and has tried to connect case of husband of appellant of different year/s. Learned A 0 has further mentioned in the assessment order that had there been adequate sources of assesses/ family for the purchase of house there would have been no need for taking loan from friends/relatives by husband of the appellant. It is surprising and shocking that at the time of framing assessment of appellant, the Learned A 0 is discussing about sources of other person for the addition.” 6. Taking up ground No.1 first the Ld. counsel for

assessee contended that the addition in the impugned case

had been made u/s 69 of the Act as per which only

additions on account of unexplained investment could be

made and since in the present case no investment had been

made by the assessee, the addition made was not

sustainable in law.

5 ITA No.484/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

Ld.Counsel for the assessee. Undisputedly, the addition in

the present case relates to cash found deposited in the

bank of the assessee which is equivalent to an investment

made by the assessee and, therefore, there is no error of law

having occurred by making the impugned addition u/s 69 of

the Act which deals with unexplained investments. In view

of the above Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is

dismissed.

of the Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the addition on merits. The Ld.

counsel for assessee has reiterated his contention made

before the lower authorities stating that the source of cash

deposited in the bank was from the withdrawals made from

her bank account in the preceding year of Rs.20 lacs on

11.6.2012 and the fact that the same was deposited after 8-

9 months did not make any difference.

orders of the authorities below.

through the orders of the authorities below. We do not find

any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The

Ld.CIT(A) has noted the findings of the A.O. that the cash

withdrawal which was attributed to having been retained by

the assessee and deposited in the impugned year, was 8-9

months old and though the assessee had claimed that the

same was kept by her in the form of cash in hand, it was

6 ITA No.484/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

noted that despite such huge amount of cash available with her she had taken loans thereafter and even made further withdrawals from the bank of substantial amounts. Moreover, the Ld.CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had claimed that the amount had been withdrawn for making investment and since the investment did not materialize the same was re-deposited, but the deposit was made in a staggered manner over a period of three months. None of the facts as pointed out by the lower authorities has been controverted before us. Further no explanation for the above has been given by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee even before us. We therefore agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the explanation of the assessee does not appear to be plausible . As rightly held by the CIT(A),merely making cash withdrawals at one point of time cannot be a sole basis for explaining the cash deposit in future. It is the totality of all the facts and circumstances which is to be considered and thereafter a plausible view to be taken on the issue, which in the present case, we find, that the assessee has been unable to offer to justify the cash deposits. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is also dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� अ�नपणा� ग�ता (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) �याय�क सद�य/Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �दनांक /Dated: 14th December, 2018 *रती*

7 ITA No.484/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आय�त / CIT 4. आयकर आय�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानसार / By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar