https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418840 Shifting and inconsistent explanations for a cash deposit in a bank account failed to discharge the assessee's primary onus to prove the source and nature of the funds. The assessee first linked the deposit to an alleged agreement to sell agricultural land and later described it as earnest money returned in cash, but produced no documentary evidence of the agreement, its cancellation, the payer's identity or creditworthiness, or the alleged cash return. The registered sale deed further showed receipt of consideration from another purchaser on the same date, which undermined the earnest-money explanation. The addition treating the deposit as unexplained was therefore upheld against the assessee. en-us Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418840 Shifting and inconsistent explanations for a cash deposit in a bank account failed to discharge the assessee's primary onus to prove the source and nature of the funds. The assessee first linked the deposit to an alleged agreement to sell agricultural land and later described it as earnest money returned in cash, but produced no documentary evidence of the agreement, its cancellation, the payer's identity or creditworthiness, or the alleged cash return. The registered sale deed further showed receipt of consideration from another purchaser on the same date, which undermined the earnest-money explanation. The addition treating the deposit as unexplained was therefore upheld against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418840