Tribunal affirms &8377; 60 lakh unexplained income addition for AY 2009-10. Burden of proof on assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of &8377; 60 lakhs as unexplained income of the assessee for the AY 2009-10. Despite the assessee's argument that another individual was responsible for the deposits, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the disputed amount to that individual. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the assessee to establish the source of the deposits, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the addition of &8377; 60 lakhs at the hands of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Addition of &8377; 60 lakhs at the hands of the assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad for the AY 2009-10 concerning the addition of &8377; 60 lakhs at the hands of the assessee. The assessee, a director in a company, filed her return declaring income of &8377; 4,41,636. The Assessing Officer (AO) found three bank accounts in the name of the assessee and questioned the source of cash deposits. The assessee claimed the transactions were related to another individual, Smt. Baddam Kalavathy, who confirmed this during her assessment. However, the AO added the &8377; 60 lakhs deposited in one account as unexplained income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that Smt. Baddam Kalavathy did not admit to the deposits in that specific account. The assessee argued that Smt. Baddam Kalavathy had accepted responsibility for all deposits, including the disputed amount, and should be taxed accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that while Smt. Baddam Kalavathy accepted transactions in two accounts, there was no confirmation for the third account. The burden of proof rested on the assessee to show the source of the deposits. The Tribunal found the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence that the disputed amount belonged to Smt. Baddam Kalavathy and was assessed in her hands. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the amount was returned to Smt. Baddam Kalavathy, citing discrepancies in the bank account transactions. Relying on case law, the Tribunal upheld the addition of &8377; 60 lakhs as unexplained income of the assessee. The Tribunal found the decisions cited by the assessee factually distinguishable and upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal.

---