Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order, sustains AO's additions for unexplained cash deposits. Importance of credible evidence stressed.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal. The additions made by the AO regarding unexplained cash deposits were upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence, cooperate in producing evidence, and comply with directives. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with credible evidence in tax proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order dated 19/09/2018 passed by CIT(A).
2. Rejection of the affidavit filed by the assessee.
3. Onus of proving the source and nature of deposits amounting to Rs. 3,95,46,000/-.
4. Addition of Rs. 3,51,000/- in respect of deposits made in Karnataka Bank Ltd.
5. Application of section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
6. Rejection of the assessee's explanation by the AO without verification.
7. Assessee's request to furnish additional evidence during the appeal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order:
The assessee challenged the impugned order dated 19/09/2018 passed by CIT(A)-45, Mumbai, arguing that it was erroneous both on facts and in law. The Tribunal upheld the order, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision, as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of cash deposits.

2. Rejection of the Affidavit:
The affidavit submitted by the assessee was rejected by the AO and CIT(A) on the grounds that it was not substantiated with supporting evidence. The Tribunal noted that merely submitting an affidavit without corroborative evidence does not suffice, especially when the assessee failed to produce the parties mentioned in the affidavit.

3. Onus of Proving the Source and Nature of Deposits:
The assessee claimed that the deposits amounting to Rs. 3,95,46,000/- were received as cash from various parties, for which cheques were issued in return. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence or produce the concerned parties to substantiate this claim, thereby failing to discharge the onus of proof.

4. Addition of Rs. 3,51,000/- in Karnataka Bank Ltd:
The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 3,51,000/- made by the AO, as the assessee failed to provide a valid explanation for this amount. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities, noting the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claim.

5. Application of Section 69A:
Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was invoked by the AO to treat the cash deposits as unexplained income. The Tribunal upheld this application, noting that the assessee failed to prove the source of the cash deposits, thus justifying the addition under section 69A.

6. Rejection of Assessee's Explanation by AO:
The AO rejected the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash deposits, citing a lack of verification and evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection was justified, as the assessee did not comply with the directions to produce relevant evidence and parties.

7. Assessee's Request to Furnish Additional Evidence:
The assessee's request to furnish additional evidence during the appeal proceedings was noted but not specifically addressed in the final judgment. The Tribunal focused on the failure to provide evidence during the initial and subsequent proceedings, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the assessee, upholding the additions made by the AO and the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proving the source of cash deposits, lack of cooperation in producing evidence, and non-compliance with the directions issued by the coordinate bench. The decision reaffirms the importance of substantiating claims with credible evidence in tax proceedings.

---