Burden of proving cash deposit source failed where sale deed did not match claimed consideration and no supporting evidence was produced.

The assessee failed to substantiate that a cash deposit of Rs. 30,00,000 represented sale consideration from his wife's land. The sale deed reflected only Rs. 3,35,700, and the assessee neither examined the wife, who was the vendor, nor produced cogent evidence to prove receipt of the full deposit as consideration. Mere reliance on the sale deed and an assertion of higher market value was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. The Kerala HC found the shifting-burden principle inapplicable on these facts and declined interference with the addition sustained by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had satisfactorily proved that the cash deposit of Rs.30,00,000 represented sale consideration received from the transfer of his wife's land, so as to justify deletion of the addition sustained by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The deposit was claimed to be sale proceeds of land sold by the assessee's wife, but the sale deed disclosed a consideration of only Rs.3,35,700. The assessee did not examine the wife, who was the vendor, nor did he produce cogent material to establish that the entire cash deposit of Rs.30,00,000 was in fact received as sale consideration. In these circumstances, mere production of the sale deed and assertion of a higher market consideration did not discharge the assessee's burden. The principle that the burden may shift only after the assessee discloses the source of the whole amount was found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to prove the source of the cash deposit, and the addition sustained by the Tribunal did not warrant interference.

---