Tribunal affirms Revenue's additions for unexplained cash deposits due to lack of evidence. Assessee's appeal dismissed.

Sh. Mahavir Singh, S/o. Sh. Attar Singh Versus Income Tax Officer

Sh. Mahavir Singh, S/o. Sh. Attar Singh Versus Income Tax Officer - TMI Issues:
1. Unexplained cash deposits in bank account.
2. Source of cash deposits.
3. Discrepancy in sale consideration.
4. Reliance on case laws for defense.

Issue 1: Unexplained cash deposits in bank account:
The Assessee appealed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut, challenging the addition of Rs. 14,93,000 as unexplained deposits in the bank. The deposits were made in the Savings Bank A/c No. 4167 with Punjab National Bank, Meerut, out of the sale consideration of land sold to Smt. Vijay Kumari. The AO found discrepancies in the explanations provided by the Assessee regarding the source of these deposits. Despite various notices and opportunities to substantiate, the Assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence. The AO made the addition of Rs. 14,93,000 as unexplained deposits, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Issue 2: Source of cash deposits:
The Assessee claimed that the cash deposits were from the sale consideration of agricultural land. However, the AO found inconsistencies in the explanations provided by the Assessee regarding the actual sale consideration received. The Assessee failed to produce confirmation letters from the buyers or any other substantial evidence to support the claim. The buyer, Smt. Vijay Kumari, denied making any additional cash payments beyond the declared sale consideration. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee's affidavit alone was not sufficient to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, leading to the confirmation of the addition by the Revenue authorities.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in sale consideration:
The Assessee contended that discrepancies in the sale consideration were common due to market rates being higher than the declared values. However, the Tribunal observed that the sale consideration declared in the sale deed was Rs. 1,80,000, with stamp duty paid accordingly. The Assessee initially declared capital gains based on a share of Rs. 90,000 but later revised the claim to Rs. 15,83,000, without providing concrete evidence. The Tribunal found that apart from the Assessee's self-serving affidavit, no substantial evidence was presented to support the revised sale consideration, leading to the rejection of the Assessee's contentions.

Issue 4: Reliance on case laws for defense:
The Assessee relied on various judgments related to the computation of long-term capital gains to support their contentions. However, the Tribunal noted that these judgments did not involve disputes over the actual sale consideration received by the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(DR) argued that the case laws cited by the Assessee were not directly applicable to the present case, where the main issue revolved around the source of unexplained cash deposits rather than the computation of capital gains. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case distinct from those in the cited judgments, as the Assessee failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the revised sale consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Revenue authorities regarding the unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, as the Assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to support the source of deposits and the revised sale consideration. The reliance on case laws for defense was deemed inapplicable to the present case, leading to the dismissal of the Assessee's appeal.