Unexplained cash deposit: inconsistent explanations and lack of evidence failed to rebut the addition.

Shifting and inconsistent explanations for a cash deposit in a bank account failed to discharge the assessee's primary onus to prove the source and nature of the funds. The assessee first linked the deposit to an alleged agreement to sell agricultural land and later described it as earnest money returned in cash, but produced no documentary evidence of the agreement, its cancellation, the payer's identity or creditworthiness, or the alleged cash return. The registered sale deed further showed receipt of consideration from another purchaser on the same date, which undermined the earnest-money explanation. The addition treating the deposit as unexplained was therefore upheld against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 79,50,000 in the assessee's bank account was satisfactorily explained and could be treated as an unexplained deposit.

Analysis: The assessee offered shifting and inconsistent explanations for the source and nature of the deposit, first linking it to an alleged agreement to sell agricultural land and later describing it as earnest money that was returned in cash. No documentary evidence was produced to prove the agreement, its cancellation, the identity and creditworthiness of the alleged payer, or the alleged return of cash. The contemporaneous registered sale deed also showed receipt of consideration from another purchaser on the same date, which negatived the explanation that the impugned sum represented earnest money for the same land. In these circumstances, the primary onus to explain the nature and source of the deposit was not discharged.

Conclusion: The addition treating the deposit as unexplained was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

---