DILIP KUMAR CHOPRA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3) (1), SURAT

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in taxing the addition by taking the rate @77.25% by attracting S 115BBE instead of taxing as per normal tax slab.

4. It is therefore prayed that the above additions made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may please be deleted.

Dilip Kumar Chopra Vs. ITO, AY- 2017-18 3 5. The first ground taken by the assessee pertains to addition of Rs.24,02,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. Shri Mehul Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was employed with Mansi Realty Pvt Ltd. from 2010 to 2015 and, thereafter, he was self-employed. He explained that the non- compliance before the AO was for the reason that the assessee was out of country for the most period during which the assessment proceeding was in progress. However, the source of cash deposits was duly explained before the Ld. CIT(A). The cash deposits made in the bank accounts were out of past savings of the assessee and also the income received during the year and the assessee had duly furnished the cash book in support thereof in the course of appellate proceeding. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the evidences furnished by the assessee in right perspective and had wrongly confirmed the addition.

Dilip Kumar Chopra Vs. ITO, AY- 2017-18 4 7. We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that total cash deposit of Rs. 24,02,500/- was made in three bank accounts of the assessee during the demonetisation period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had furnished the following explanation for source of the cash deposits.

“7.1 It is emanating from the material on record that the appellant has deposited cash of Rs 24,01,487/- in 3 bank accounts as mentioned earlier in this order The only submission appellant has made in support of cash availability is of Cash Book for FY 2016-17. From the cash book, appellant has shown that cash was available (Rs. 24,01,486/- on 31.03.2016 with the appellant to deposit it in the bank accounts. However, appellant has not produced a shred of evidence in support of the cash book prepared. Appellant is required to adduce all the evidences in support of the cash generated which was deposited in to bank accounts later on. Appellant has produced the bank account statement of Bank of Baroda. From the bank statement, it is seen that appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 800,000/-on 14.11.2016 in the bank account and further, it was observed that appellant had not withdrawn the cash from the said bank till 13.11.2016 which would have become available to deposit it in the same bank. Appellant has not provided the evidence of sale of car which had generated cash for the appellant. Thus appellant has not provided any supporting documentary evidences in support of the source of cash deposits. The onus is on the appellant to substantiate his claims with credible and verifiable evidence. Mere oral assertions or uncorroborated statements are not sufficient in the absence of supporting documentation. Assessee is required to disclose all primary facts; the burden to prove correctness lies on him. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to show the nature and source of a credit in the books. The Courts have taken a consistent position that the assessee is expected to establish proof of identity of creditors, capacity of creditors and genuineness of creditors in order to discharge onus cast on assessee. Mere production of party or confirmation from party will not suffice, unless the assessee is also able to substantiate their creditworthiness ie ability to advance the sum to the assessee.

Dilip Kumar Chopra Vs. ITO, AY- 2017-18 6 9. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly rejected the additional evidences as the same were not reliable. The cash book was uncorroborated with any independent evidence and was in the nature of self-serving document, which was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). We don’t find anything wrong with the findings as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). It is thus evident that the assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.24,02,500/ made in the bank accounts during the demonetisation period. At the same time, certain old savings available with the assessee being deposited in the bank accounts cannot be ruled out. As per the instruction of the CBDT, the cash deposits during the demonetisation period to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- was not required to be inquired into. Further, the assessee had filed a copy of agreement for sale of car No. GJ 16 BN0003 dated 06.10.2016 as per which the car was sold to one Shri Ashif Khan J. Pathan for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/- and the entire consideration was paid on the date of agreement. The AO did not dispute this additional evidence filed by the assessee by causing necessary inquiry in the matter. Therefore, the assessee is allowed relief to the extent of Rs.7,50,000/- being sale proceeds of car. Considering these facts, it will be reasonable to accept total cash deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- as explained being on account of past and current savings. Accordingly, the assessee is allowed a relief to that extent. The balance addition of Rs.14,02,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts, is upheld. In the result, the ground of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 11/03/2026 at Ahmedabad.