TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Year 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.4,40,450/-. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny because the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.28,28,000/- in two bank accounts in his name with Bank of Baroda. The deposit was made during the demonetization period. 3. The assessee explained the source of funds as earlier cash withdrawals from the very same bank accounts, withdrawals from FD and pension account. The AO disbelieved the plea of the assessee for the following reasons: "8. As per assessee's letter itself, he has claimed that he had witharawn total amount of Rs.18.67.500/- from Oct. 201310 08.11.2016. whereas he has deposited total amount of Rs. 28,28,000/- during the period of demonetization. The assessee has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....just before the period of demonetization. However considering the average need of person to maintain cash at home for medical contingency and bank withdrawals made during the year, the cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 is taken at Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence the balance cash deposited in bank accounts during the demonetization period at Rs.23,28,000/- remains unexplained at assessee's hands." 4. The AO therefore after giving credit for Rs. 5 lakhs added a sum of Rs.23,28,000/- as unexplained money deposited in bank account under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 5. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. On the plea of the assessee that earlier cash withdrawals from the two bank accounts are the source ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit (Cr) Balance. Whenever balance goes over Rs. 1,00,000/- he tries to make FDR and deposits even Rs. 500/- and Rs. 600/- in his bank account (refer bank accounts above, transactions dated 20.06.2016, 08.07.2016 and 25.10.2016). 5.14 A person having Rs. 12,020/- per month pension claims that he had cash in hand of Rs. 28,28,000/- is without any basis. The appellant does not have status to hold Rs. 28,28,000/- in cash and there is no evidence of withdrawing all his retirement benefit in cash. Broadly, he received Rs.19.20 Lakh do retirement and still have FDRs of Rs 15,00,000/-, then it is possible that he withdrew the balance amount of Rs.4,20,000/-. Even if it is accepted that no amount was spent by him and entire amount was kept as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n accounts was made on 29.9.2003 and on 25.11.2003. The authorities have disbelieved the ease of the assessee on the ground that there is a gap of 40 days or more between the withdrawal of the amount from the bank account and re-deposit of the same in the loan account. Secondly, on the ground that, it is risky to keep large amount of cash on hand. Thirdly, they are of the view that the explanation offered such as having borrowed a gold loan, yet another loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and sale of paddy, are not established by proper evidence. It is in this context, it is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of 'S.R. Venkataratnam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-1 and another' reported in ITR (127) 1981 Page 807, where a l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperly explained. Merely because there is a delay of 40 days from the date of withdrawal of the money from the bank account to the date of deposit in the loan account. Once money is shown to be in the account and withdrawn, what the assessee did with that money till it was actually deposited, is not the concern of the Department. As long as the source is explained and established and when the money is withdrawn from a savings bank account and paid to discharge loan by deposit into a loan account, it is not possible to hold that the source is not explained. In that interregnum period, if the very same money is utilized for other purpose and thereafter, it is appropriated towards discharge of a loan, that cannot be held against the assessee.....