Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
Per contra, the Ld. DR questioned the necessity of holding such huge cash balance for a period of 17 months. The Ld. DR also pointed out to the fact that the assessee has deposited the cash subsequent to the announcement of demonetization in two installments which was also admitted by the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR argued that in the normal circumstances, it is an undisputed fact that each and every citizen wished to deposit the entire cash into the bank account in the first instance itself, consequent to the announcement of demonetization. The Ld. DR also supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Authorities below. The admitted facts are that the assessee has withdrawn cash out of the matured Fixed Deposits on 10/07/2015. We find that in the instant case, the assessee has deposited Rs. 2.50 lakhs on 16/11/2016 and Rs. 10.84 lakhs on 5/12/2016 in two phases. The ratio laid down in K. Sreedharan (supra) and co-ordinate benches cited by the Ld.AR is not relevant in the instant case as facts are distinguishable from the instant case where the cash deposit is in two phases consequent to demonitisation. We find merit in the argument of Ld. DR that subsequent to demonetization every citizen of the country rushed to deposit the money into their bank accounts as early as possible. There is also no cogent evidence provided by the Ld. AR that the cash withdrawn from savings account on 10/07/2015 was deposited on 5/12/2016. In the absence of a reasonable explanation and the necessity of depositing the cash in two phases, we find no merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR that it is out of the cash withdrawals of earlier years which was deposited into the bank account of the assessee consequent to the demonetization announced by the Government of India. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and in our opinion no interference is required in this regard.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 30th May, 2022.