2021 (7) TMI 1006 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal partially allows appeal, upholds unexplained cash deposits. Emphasizes evidence and documentation in financial claims.

Ramendra Singh Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (2)

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 1,87,215 was sustained as unexplained cash deposits, while the remaining ... Unexplained cash deposits in bank account - HELD THAT:- Firstly, in respect of availability of cash from the retail business, the assessee has shown a figure of ₹ 242,110 whereas the AO has computed an amount of ₹ 179,500/- in respect of which no specific contention has been raised before us and hence, the figure of ₹ 179,500/- as so computed by the AO needs to be considered as against figure of ₹ 242,110/-. In respect of drawings, the assessee has shown a figure of ₹ 119500/-, however, no basis has been specified as to how the assessee has determined the said figure where as the AO has returned a finding that given that assessee has salary and other business income, the household withdrawals can be considered as met out of salary income which has not been disputed by the assessee. Drawings towards household withdrawals are taken at ₹ 144,000/- instead of ₹ 119500/- taken by the assessee. Similarly, in respect of cash flow statement in support of opening cash balance, drawing a similar analogy regarding household withdrawals, the drawings towards household withdrawals are taken at ₹ 108,000/- instead of ₹ 48,000/- for A.Y 2008-09 and ₹ 144,000/- instead of ₹ 66,770/- for A.Y 2009-10 and considering the same, the opening cash balance would come to ₹ 323,635/- instead of ₹ 423,740/- considered by the assessee. Taking the same into consideration, we find that total cash receipts comes to ₹ 34,03,035 and total deposits comes to ₹ 35,90,250/- reflecting a shortfall of ₹ 187,215/- which remain unexplained. Hence, the addition to the extent of ₹ 187,215/- are sustained and remaining addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and legality of additions and disallowances made under Section 143(3) of the Act.2. Partial confirmation of the addition of Rs. 7,09,750 out of Rs. 12,09,750 as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act.3. Non-acceptance of the opening cash balance of Rs. 4,23,740 as on 01.04.2009.4. Consideration of cash flow statements and the genuineness of entries in the bank account.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Legality of Additions and Disallowances:The assessee challenged the jurisdiction and the factual basis of the additions and disallowances made under Section 143(3) of the Act. The contention was that the impugned additions were bad in law and on facts of the case. However, the Tribunal did not find any substantial argument or evidence presented by the assessee to substantiate this claim, and thus, this ground was not elaborated further.2. Partial Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 7,09,750:The CIT(A) had partly confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,09,750 out of Rs. 12,09,750 made by the AO as unexplained cash deposits in the bank account under Section 69A of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) accepted the genuineness of the gift of Rs. 5,00,000 from the assessee's father but did not find the opening cash balance and other credit entries in the bank account satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal upheld this partial confirmation, recognizing that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the authenticity of the remaining amount.3. Non-Acceptance of Opening Cash Balance of Rs. 4,23,740:The assessee argued that the opening cash balance of Rs. 4,23,740 as on 01.04.2009 was fully established through previous income and savings. The Tribunal considered the assessee's past income and savings but found discrepancies in the cash flow statements and household withdrawals. The AO had rejected the opening cash balance due to lack of evidence and unexplained discrepancies. The Tribunal adjusted the household withdrawals for previous years and recalculated the opening cash balance to Rs. 3,23,635 instead of Rs. 4,23,740, leading to a shortfall.4. Consideration of Cash Flow Statements and Genuineness of Entries:The Tribunal evaluated the cash flow statements submitted by the assessee, which included opening cash balance, gifts, salary income, business income, and other receipts. The AO and CIT(A) had rejected parts of these statements due to lack of supporting evidence and self-serving nature. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the cash flow and bank deposits was not fully substantiated. The Tribunal recalculated the total cash receipts and deposits, finding a shortfall of Rs. 1,87,215 which remained unexplained. Consequently, the Tribunal sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,87,215 and directed the deletion of the remaining addition.Conclusion:In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 1,87,215 was sustained as unexplained cash deposits, while the remaining addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with reasonable explanations and documentation, especially in cases involving cash flow statements and unexplained deposits. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 02/07/2021.