TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as erred in law in upholding the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that source of cash deposit of Rs. 1250000 made by the appellant is his bank account during demonetization period on 10.11.2016 remained unexplained and thereby confirming addition of said amount of Rs. 1250000 to the income of the appellant u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them." 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident living in Thailand. The only source of income of assessee in India is notional income from House Property at Mumbai and interest income from his NRO/NRE Bank A/c. The assessee maintains accounts on computer for his affairs in India and prepares yearly Balance Sheet etc.The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 computing total income of Rs. 88,407/- and therefrom claimed deduction u/s 80C of Rs. 88,407/- and thus declaring NIL income (The A.O. in assessment completed wrongly taken income declared at Rs. 88,407/- ignoring deduction of Rs. 88,407/- claimed by assessee u/s 80C of Act). The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the I.T. Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also verifiable from the material on assessment record that the assessee is Non-resident permanently living in Thailand. The appellant has no information whatsoever that when appealwas fixed. It is a known fact to everyone that March, 2020 to Aug. 2021 was Covid-19 period and the maximum period was under lockdown. Even the operation of international flights were also suspended and they were not allowed to fly. Because of thisassessee did not know about any notice for hearing of appeal and so could not appear/filed written submission before CIT (A). It is further submitted that before the last date of hearing i.e. 13-08-2021 the appellant tried to upload the written submission on Income Tax portal. But due technical glitches in the New Tax Portal could not able to file written submission. Thus, assessee because of above said reason(s)did not know about notice(s) for hearing of appeal. In view of the above facts and circumstances the assessee was prevented by sufficient reasons in not complying the notice(s) received from CIT (A). Thus there was no conscious default in compliance the terms of the statutory notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A). In this connection it is also submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise marriage expenses in cash and by cheques with evidence and month wise cash book showed balance cash in hand for A.Y. 2016-17. The Ld. A.O. rejected the said explanation and documents filed giving following reasons: - a) details of op. cash balance shown as on 01-04-2016 in details of cash withdrawn/cash expenses for the year 1-4-2016 to 31-3-2017 has not been filed. b) specific reason and rationale is not clear in respect of the fact that when assessee was already in possession of substantial cash amount why an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was again withdrawn on 19-05-2016. c) no evidence filed of occurring marriage of son in Jan. 2017 and also no supporting documents related to marriage exp. in cash shown in cash book. The proofs for the payments for marriage expenses do not mention any details of the assessee. Somewhere it is mentioned marriage expenses and somewhere it is mentioned engagement ceremony. d) The cash withdrawl from Bank A/c as appearing from Bank statement was made by Anurag, Keshav, Nitish but assessee filed no documentary evidence that assessee received back cash from them. The A.O. giving these findings rejected the explanation of assessee and held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 10-11-2016 out of cash balance with assessee after cash expenses incurred on marriage function out of cash withdrawals made by assessee from his Bank A/c(s). The engagement ceremony occurs prior to marriage ceremony which are ceremonies of marriage and so expenses on any of them referred as marriage expenses. (d) No withdrawal from Bank A/c of assessee was made by Keshav which is verifiable from Bank A/c. The withdrawals were made by Anurag and Nitish from Bank A/c of assessee was for and on behalf of assessee on self cheques. The said persons are regular employees of the concern of his brother at Jaipur who were assisting assessee for that. The Ld. A.O. made no enquiry from assessee about this otherwise it could have been explained. We submit herewith the affidavits of above said persons in support of contention made. It was initially thought to solemnize all marriage functions at Jaipur but after Roka ceremony it was decided amongst families that engagement ceremony will only be held in Jaipur and marriage ceremony will be performed at Dubai. It was the reason that marriage expenses in cash as against thought earlier have been lesser and mostly marriage expenses were paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 08.11.2016. The appellant did not submit any proof in support of claim of opening cash in hand of Rs. 4,66,688/-. Further; no plausible explanation has been given as to why cash was withdrawn when substantial cash was already available in hand. It is seen that as per the bank statement, the cash was delivered to three different persons namely Mr. Nitish, Mr. Anurag and Mr. Sunil. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence at assessment stage or appeal as to how and when cash was received back from them. Further, the explanation that cash was withdrawn for marriage purpose is found to be incorrect as subsequently when the marriage happened in January 2017; all related payments were made by cheques and not in cash. In view of the overall circumstances, the explanation tendered by the appellant remains unproven and is not plausible. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the AO that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposit. 8. It is also noteworthy that the huge cash deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- was made by way of one single deposit on 10.11.2016 and it was clearly made in consequence of demonetization of high va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the issue of source of demonetized currency, Hon'ble High Courts of Patna and Calcutta in Chunilal Rastogi vs. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 341 (Pat), Anil Kumar Singh vs. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.) and M. L. Tewary vs. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 630(PAT.), have respectively held that where the assessee could not satisfactorily prove source and nature of amount which he encased on demonetization, revenue authorities were perfectly justified in drawing an inference that said sum was of an income nature. 13. Hon'ble ITAt Delhi has in Leela Devi vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) [ITA No. 1423/Del/1420 has upheld addition of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account in AY 2017-18 i.e. during the demonetization period. 14. In view of the overall discussion made above, it is concluded that the appellant has failed to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act is confirmed. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. It is noted that relating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such as cash gifts envelopes for relatives etc. purchase of several goods from local market of daily consumption, for decoration/flowers etc. for these expenses the assessee has incurred in cash and kept cash ready with him and with his family members to incur expenses as and when required. Further the Assessing Officer has erred in findings that the opening cash balance in hand of Rs. 4,66,688/- as on 01.04.2016 has not been submitted by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the assessee's opening cash balance so given to the family members and other persons associated for the preparation of marriage ceremony for possible in future expenses was genuine . From the averments of the ld. AR for the assessee we observed that he has made further withdrawal cash from his bank accounts on 19.05.2016 and the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that documentary evidence and details of marriage expenses in PB from page nos. 18 to 28. Further, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that no withdrawals from his bank accounts of the assessee was made by Keshav which is verifiable from bank account the withdrawals were made by Anurag and Nitish from bank account of the assessee was for and on be....