NAVAJYOTI PATTNAIK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2,

Bhubaneswar, dated 24.8.2016, for the assessment year 2010-2011.

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer making addition of

Rs.3,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit in bank account.

2 ITA No.425 /CT K/20 16 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1

authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer observed

that the assessee made deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- on 6.3.2010 besides other

deposits aggregating to Rs.29,45,000/- in his bank account. The Assessing

Officer required the assessee to explain the source for the same. The assessee

submitted that the deposit is out of cash withdrawal of Rs.6,00,000/- on

5.1.2010. The Assessing Officer did not find this explanation of the assessee

as satisfactory for the reason that it is unnatural that he kept the unutilized

money of 5th January, 2010 to deposit on 6th March, 2010. Further, there is

a cash withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- on 5.2.2010, another withdrawal of

Rs.50,000/- on 8.2.2010 and a number of ATM withdrawals between 5.1.2010

and 6.3.2010. These fail to satisfy the logic behind assessee’s explanation as

regards the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- on 6.3.2010 out of his withdrawal of

Rs.6,00,000/- on 5.1.2010. Therefore, he made an addition of Rs.3,00,000/-

u/s.68 as unexplained cash credit.

made before the Assessing Officer.

the action of the Assessing Officer observing as under:

“I have gone through the assessment order, grounds of appeal and written submissions filed before me. It is seen that the appellant has tried to explain cash deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 06.03.2010

3 ITA No.425 /CT K/20 16 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1

out of his withdrawal of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 05.01.2010. There is a gap of two months between withdrawal and deposit. It means that for these two months the appellant was holding cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in his hand. If that is show, then why did the appellant withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.02.2010, Rs.50,000/-on 08.02.2010 and number of ATM withdrawals between 05.01.2010 to 06.03.2010. It is clear that the withdrawal ofRs. 6,00,00/- on 05.01.2010 is not the source of cash deposit ofRs. 3,00,000/- ohD6.03.2010. Considering this, the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s.68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is confirmed and the ground of appeal is dismissed.”

authorities, ld A.R. of the assessee argued and submitted that it is the

assessee’s choice how much amount to withdraw from the bank and how

much to keep cash in hand.

view that the assessee miserably failed to explain the source of deposit of

Rs.3,00,000/- on 6.3.2010 in his bank account The explanation of the

assessee was that the same was out of his earlier withdrawal of Rs.6,00,000/-

on 5.1.2010. Both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) did not believe

this explanation of the assessee for the reason that when the assessee had

Rs.6,00,000/- with him, then what was the necessity for the assessee to

withdraw Rs.1 lakh on 5.2.2010 and Rs.50,000/- on 8.2.2010 and a number

of ATM withdrawals between 05.01.2010 to 06.03.2010. According to both

the lower authorities, the only logical conclusion in the above facts and

circumstances of the case is that the withdrawal made on 5.1.2010 of

4 ITA No.425 /CT K/20 16 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1

Rs.6,00,000/- was not available with the assessee and was utilized by him for

some other purpose. No material was brought before me to controvert the

findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). Hence, I find no good

reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed

and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.