Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made in respect of cash deposits in the bank account was to be sustained in full, or whether it should be restricted to the peak credit after verification of the deposit and withdrawal pattern.
Analysis: The assessee did not succeed before the lower authorities in explaining the source of the cash deposits by documentary evidence. Before the Tribunal, the substantive challenge to the addition was not a complete denial of taxability, but a request that the addition be confined to peak credit on the footing that subsequent withdrawals were available for redeposit. A cash flow chart and supporting details were placed on record, and the Tribunal found that the working required verification because it had not been examined by the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the issue warranted restoration for fresh examination with due opportunity to the assessee.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the assessee's peak credit claim and restrict the addition accordingly; the full addition was not sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where cash deposits and withdrawals form a recurring sequence and the peak credit claim is supported by a verifiable cash flow, the unexplained deposit addition may be confined to the peak amount after proper verification, rather than taxing the gross deposits in full.