Successful Appeal: Burden of Proof Discharged with Documentary Evidence

The ITAT allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of income from undisclosed sources. The appellant successfully discharged the burden of proof with documentary evidence and a sworn affidavit, showing the cash deposited and withdrawn were the same. The ITAT found the appellant's explanations credible, contradicting the lower authorities' findings, leading to the deletion of the disputed amount as income from undisclosed sources.

---

---

Issues:
Addition of income from undisclosed sources based on cash deposit explanation.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order confirming the addition of Rs. 59,70,000 as income from undisclosed sources by the Assessing Officer. The appellant, engaged in consultancy, brokerage, and construction in real estate, declared income of Rs. 2,17,575 in the return filed. The disputed amount was explained by the appellant as received from his company, Prime Property Managers Private Limited, and withdrawn for negotiations with tenants to obtain vacant possession of land. The appellant provided bank statements, company accounts, and other evidence to support the explanation.

The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the explanation, citing lack of proof for keeping a large amount as cash in hand, discrepancies in bank statements, and absence of business expediency. The AO concluded that the cash deposited and withdrawn were not the same, treating the amount as income from undisclosed sources. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] confirmed the AO's order, emphasizing the lack of established source for the cash in hand and analyzing the bank statements.

In the appeal before the ITAT, the appellant argued that the burden of proof was discharged with documentary evidence and a sworn affidavit. The appellant relied on case law and contended that the revenue did not provide counter evidence. During the hearing, the ITAT requested an affidavit to confirm the encashment of cheques by the appellant, which was submitted and accepted as evidence.

The ITAT found the cheques were encashed by the appellant, contradicting the CIT (A)'s finding. The ITAT concluded that the appellant had withdrawn and redeposited the amount, supported by the affidavit and lack of contrary evidence. The ITAT accepted the appeal, deleting the addition of income from undisclosed sources, as the appellant's contentions were deemed correct based on the evidence presented.

In summary, the ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's successful discharge of the burden of proof through documentary evidence and a sworn affidavit, leading to the deletion of the addition of income from undisclosed sources.

---