TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal confirms cash deposit addition under Income Tax Act Sec.69 due to lack of credible explanations</h1> <h3>Sh. Gurbhej Singh, Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (4), Abohar.</h3> Sh. Gurbhej Singh, Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (4), Abohar. - TMI Issues:- Addition of cash deposits in the bank account under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Applicability of provisions of Sec.69 in the case- Explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash depositsAnalysis:Issue 1: Addition of cash deposits in the bank account under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961The appellant's case involved the addition of cash deposits in the bank account under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer added the amount of &8377; 31,15,000/- to the appellant's income due to unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, resulting in a tax demand of &8377; 13,02,770/-. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by deleting a portion of the addition but confirmed &8377; 15,47,000/- as an addition. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the provisions of Sec.69 were not applicable to the case as no books of accounts were maintained. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition, emphasizing the lack of cooperation from the appellant in providing explanations for the cash deposits.Issue 2: Applicability of provisions of Sec.69 in the caseThe appellant contended that Sec.69 did not apply to the case as they were not maintaining any books of accounts. The Tribunal analyzed Sec.69, highlighting that it does not mandate the maintenance of books of accounts for its application. The section deems investments made outside the recorded books of accounts as income if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the lack of cooperation and satisfactory explanations led to the deemed income addition under Sec.69.Issue 3: Explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash depositsThe appellant provided an alternative explanation regarding the source of cash deposits, stating that a friend had given them money for safekeeping after selling agricultural land. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies and improbabilities in this explanation. The friend's statement contradicted the appellant's claims, raising suspicions about the source of the funds. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the addition of cash deposits under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasizing the importance of providing satisfactory explanations and cooperation during assessment proceedings. The appellant's alternative explanations were found to be lacking credibility, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
