2025 (8) TMI 1021 - AT - Income Tax

Decision limits demonetisation-period cash addition to Rs.2,77,822 after substantial corroborative evidence, grants Rs.11,00,000 relief; not precedent

ITAT Delhi (AT) found that although the assessee failed to fully prove the source of demonetisation-period cash deposits, she had submitted substantial ... Unexplained cash deposits during demonetization - assessee explaining source thereof as her rental income (in cash), past accumulated savings and her deceased husband (a Chartered Accountant)’s cash withdrawal duly supported by the cash flow statement as well - HELD THAT:- Tribunal hereby notices in light of the assessee’s detailed paper book that although she has not been able to satisfactorily discharge her onus of proving source of the cash deposits, the fact also remains she has indeed filed all the corresponding evidence which could not be simply brushed aside. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,77,822/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 11,00,000/- in other words. This appeal under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Assessment Year 2017-18) challenges a departmental addition of cash deposits made during demonetization totaling Rs.13,77,822. The assessee submitted an extensive paper book (115 pages) asserting sources as rental income (in cash), past accumulated savings and withdrawals from the deceased spouse's cash balances, supported by a cash-flow statement. The tribunal noted that, although the assessee 'has not been able to satisfactorily discharge her onus of proving source of the cash deposits,' she nevertheless 'has indeed filed all the corresponding evidence which could not be simply brushed aside.' In the exercise of discretion and 'in the larger interest of justice,' the tribunal reduced the addition to a lump sum of Rs.2,77,822 (granting relief of Rs.11,00,000), directing necessary computation as per law, and adding the rider that the decision 'shall not be as a precedent.' The appeal was partly allowed.