2022 (12) TMI 839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f appeal: "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Chennai dated 30.01.2020 in l.T.A.No.34/CIT(A)-5/2018-19, for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment of Rs.74,10,000/being the cash credits on the application of section 68 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 68 of the Act had no application to the facts of the case and ought to have appreciated that the initial burden as per the statutory provisions was fully discharged, thereby vitiat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 28.12.2006, the AO has made addition of Rs. 74,10,000/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, for cash deposits found in the bank account of the assessee. In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence as may be filed by the assessee to justify source for cash deposit found in his bank account. In the second round of litigation, the AO has made addition towards cash deposits found in bank account on the ground that the assessee could not submit any evidence in support of his claim that source for cash deposit is out of known source of income. The assessee carried t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....certain parties, assessee could not file any other evidences to justify source for cash deposit. Further, so called affidavit was first time filed before the CIT(A) in second round of litigation. In absence of evidences to support affidavit, the CIT(A) has rightly rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made towards cash deposit and thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The AO has made additions towards cash deposit u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits, on the ground that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain source for cash deposit. It was the ex....