ITAT deletes cash addition under section 69 for demonetization deposits with proper documentation

ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of assessee regarding cash deposits during demonetization period. Assessee deposited Rs. 15,10,500 claiming it was from earlier bank withdrawals for son's marriage expenses that remained unutilized. Despite time gap between withdrawal and re-deposit, tribunal found assessee discharged initial burden by providing cash flow statements, bank records, and cash book extracts. AO's rejection based solely on time gap was held invalid as no statutory time limit exists for re-deposits. Without contrary evidence proving alternate use of withdrawn cash, addition under section 69 was deleted. Appeal allowed.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain to the applicability of section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Specifically, the issues are:

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 15,10,500/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the cash deposits as unexplained income under section 69 is justified.

2. Whether the provisions of section 69 apply to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, given the explanation that the deposits were sourced from previous cash withdrawals.

3. Whether the explanation that the cash deposits during demonetization were re-deposits of unutilized cash previously withdrawn for family expenses and functions is sufficient to exclude the addition under section 69.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 69 to Cash Deposits During Demonetization

The legal framework under section 69 of the Income-tax Act provides that any sum found credited in the books of an assessee or deposited in a bank account is deemed to be income from an undisclosed source unless satisfactorily explained. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked this provision to treat the cash deposits of Rs. 15,10,500/- made during the demonetization period as unexplained income.

The AO's reasoning was premised on the time gap of approximately 5 to 18 months between the cash withdrawals and their subsequent re-deposits, asserting that it was improbable for the assessee, who had no other income except interest, to hold such a large cash amount for so long without utilizing it. The AO further observed that the withdrawals were made over a protracted period, and the deposits were made in multiple installments during demonetization, which was considered suspicious.

The Court noted that while section 69 places the initial burden on the assessee to explain the source of deposits, the AO must rebut the explanation with material evidence to justify treating the deposits as unexplained income.

2. Explanation of Source of Cash Deposits as Re-deposits of Earlier Withdrawals

The assessee submitted detailed evidence including bank statements, cash flow statements, and cash book extracts demonstrating that the cash deposits during demonetization were sourced from earlier cash withdrawals aggregating Rs. 42,50,000/- made over 2015-16. The withdrawals were explained as intended for family expenses, including marriages and medical costs, with supporting bills for jewellery, furniture, medical expenses, and LIC premiums amounting to Rs. 32,19,812/-.

The unutilized cash balance, as per the cash flow statement, was Rs. 15,38,188/-, closely matching the amount redeposited. The assessee contended that the cash was kept on hand and subsequently redeposited during demonetization due to practical difficulties and personal circumstances, including being a senior citizen unfamiliar with digital banking.

Judicial precedents were cited to assert that in the absence of material evidence contradicting the explanation, the mere time gap between withdrawal and deposit cannot be a ground to disbelieve the assessee's claim. The Court referred to precedents holding that once the source of cash is explained by prior withdrawals, the Department cannot speculate on the utilization of cash in the interim without evidence.

3. Treatment of Time Gap Between Withdrawal and Deposit

The AO and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) relied heavily on the time gap between withdrawals and deposits and the fact that the assessee was withdrawing and depositing cash on the same days during demonetization, which was viewed as inconsistent. The CIT(A) also questioned why the entire cash was not deposited in one installment and why deposits were spread over a month.

The assessee rebutted these points by clarifying that minor withdrawals during demonetization were of new currency notes and unrelated to the major cash deposits under scrutiny. The Court observed that the AO's and CIT(A)'s reliance on these minor withdrawals was misplaced and irrelevant to the core issue.

Further, the Court emphasized that there is no statutory or judicially prescribed time limit within which cash must be re-deposited to be considered explained. The mere existence of a time gap, without evidence of alternate use or diversion, cannot invalidate the explanation.

4. Burden of Proof and Onus on the Department

The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that while the assessee must prove a positive fact (source of cash), he cannot be expected to prove a negative (non-utilization elsewhere). Once the assessee establishes the source, the burden shifts to the Department to disprove or rebut this explanation with material evidence.

In the present case, the AO failed to produce any such evidence to show that the withdrawn cash was spent or diverted for undisclosed purposes. The AO's conclusion was based on conjecture and assumptions about prudent financial behavior, which the Court found speculative and unsupported by facts.

5. Judicial Precedents Supporting the Assessee's Case

The Court relied on several authoritative judgments:

• S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT - The Karnataka High Court held that once the source is disclosed as a bank withdrawal, the Department cannot question the use of the money without evidence.
• Smt. P. Padmavathi v. ITO - The Karnataka High Court held that a delay between withdrawal and deposit does not negate the explanation if the source is established.
• Jaya Aggarwal v. ITO - The Delhi High Court emphasized that human conduct and behavior must be given due latitude and that delay alone cannot discredit an explanation.
• Additional Tribunal decisions reinforcing that time gaps alone cannot justify additions under section 69 in the absence of contrary evidence.

6. Application of Law to Facts and Final Conclusions

The Court found that the assessee had consistently filed returns declaring income solely from interest, which was credited to the bank account. The cash withdrawals were from this income, and the re-deposits during demonetization represented unutilized cash. The AO's and CIT(A)'s reliance on assumptions about prudent financial conduct and the time gap were insufficient to disbelieve the explanation.

Accordingly, the Court held that the addition under section 69 was not sustainable in law and deleted the addition of Rs. 15,10,500/-. The appeal was allowed.

Significant Holdings:

"It is a settled position in law that while an assessee is required to prove a positive fact, he cannot be expected to prove a negative. In such circumstances, the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to rebut the explanation by bringing on record any material evidence to show that the withdrawn cash was utilized or diverted for some other purpose."

"The mere existence of a time gap, without any corroborative evidence of alternate use of funds, cannot be a valid ground to disbelieve the assessee's explanation."

"It is not for the AO to decide that the assessee should have acted in a financially prudent manner, which expectation is unreasonable and cannot form a valid basis for drawing an adverse inference."

"Additions cannot be made based on suspicion or surmise."

"Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents to concern themselves with what the assessee did with that money."

"Delay of some months in redeposit of part amount is the sole and only reason to disbelieve the appellant. Persons can behave differently even when placed in similar situations. Due regard and latitude to human conduct and behaviour has to be given and accepted when we consider validity and truthfulness of an explanation."

The Court established the principle that unexplained cash deposits under section 69 cannot be presumed merely due to time gaps between withdrawal and deposit, especially when the assessee has provided credible documentary evidence and there is no material contradicting the explanation. The decision underscores the importance of evidentiary burden on the Department and cautions against speculative or conjectural additions.

---