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>High Court upholds Tribunal's decision on unexplained income from cash deposit under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Smt. Kavita Chandra Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula and others</h3> Smt. Kavita Chandra Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula and others - [2017] 398 ITR 641 Issues:1. Addition of Rs. 14,20,212 as unexplained income.2. Justification of the Tribunal's decision.3. Shift of onus for proving utilization of the sum.4. Upholding addition under sections 68/69A of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 14,20,212 as unexplained incomeThe appellant-assessee appealed against the Tribunal's order upholding the addition of Rs. 14,20,212 as unexplained income for the assessment year 2007-08. The CIT(A) had accepted Rs. 27 lakhs deposited by the assessee but rejected the balance amount, stating that Rs. 14,20,212 was deposited after a gap of 2-3 months and hence not available for redeposit. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the withdrawals were for business purposes and not available for redeposit, as they were re-deposited after a considerable gap. The Tribunal upheld the finding that the cash deposit of Rs. 14,20,212 was unexplained income, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the assessee.Issue 2: Justification of the Tribunal's decisionThe Tribunal, after examining the evidence, upheld the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 14,20,212. The Tribunal noted that most withdrawals were made by cheque, with only two cash withdrawals of Rs. 2 lakhs each. It was observed that withdrawals were often small amounts made by an employee and deposited back after a gap, making it improbable to link the cash withdrawn with the deposit. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the withdrawals were for business purposes and not available for redeposit, leading to the affirmation of treating the cash deposit as unexplained income.Issue 3: Shift of onus for proving utilization of the sumThe appellant raised a question regarding the onus of proving the utilization of the sum of Rs. 14,20,212, questioning whether it should be on the Tribunal or the department. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of linkage between the cash withdrawn and deposited, concluding that the appellant failed to establish a connection. Therefore, the onus of proof was not a determining factor in this case.Issue 4: Upholding addition under sections 68/69A of the Income Tax ActThe CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 14,20,212 under sections 68/69A of the Income Tax Act, considering the unexplained sources of income. The Tribunal concurred with this decision, emphasizing the lack of clarity in the cash flow statement and the inability to establish a direct link between withdrawals and deposits. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, as the findings were considered pure facts and not shown to be illegal or perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on merits.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant-assessee, as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision, and the findings were upheld as factual and legally sound.
TaxTMI 