TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and in any case the entire cash deposits in bank being duly sourced and explained and there being no unexplained money at all, the addition as confirmed being erroneous is to be deleted. 3. The authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the cash deposited into bank are duly reflected in cash book and the source of such cash deposits are duly explained. The addition as made/confirmed is without basis and based on surmises and conjectures are to be deleted. 4. In any case, the addition of cash deposits as made/confirmed being part of business receipts which have already been considered for computing taxable income, the addition on account of bank deposits as confirmed amounts to double addition and hence the same is to be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, are applicable to the addition as made and confirmed. On proper appreciation of the facts of the law, it is clear that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, are not applicable to the case of the appellant and therefore the computation of tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, being erroneous is to be deleted. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the perils of holding cash. It would be very natural for any person to deposit the amount back into the bank if the purpose of withdrawal was not served immediately. No such proof provided by the assessee which require him to hold back the cash. The assessee further has not given any such proof also to show that he had family issues for which he withdrew money. No proof of what so ever was provided to show that he was holding the cash with him except to say that it was with him. b) Moreover, the assessee being literate and also an income-tax assessee, would clearly be knowing that no person would accept cash, especially of this magnitude. There is no need to educate him about section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, which is amended with effect from 01.06.2015 to provide that no person shall accept from any person any loan or deposit or any sum of money, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by electronic clearing system through a bank account, if the amount of such loan or deposit or such specified sum is twenty thousand rupees or more. Accordingly, if the cash with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was in need of more money, he further withdrew the cash from bank Even with respect to withdrawal of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 28.07.2016, the explanation given by him is that the money he withdrew earlier was kept with his father and as his father was not in station, he withdrew further cash. First of all, the assessee has given no proof to show that his father was not in station. Secondly, no proof is produced to show that the money was given and kept with his father, because of which he had to further withdrawn Rs. 2,00,000/-. The sequence clearly establishes the fact that the assessee is only telling an implausible story to cover up his transactions which could be shady. Hence, the explanation given by the assessee is baseless and beyond reality. d) If he had kept the cash with his father who was not in station, how was he able to deposit cash of Rs. 10.00.000/- into his bank account on 26.07.2016. When he can deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- cash. if he had remaining cash on hand, he could have also deposited the same also along with Rs. 10,00,000/. Further, he even deposits Rs. 20,000/- on 01.08.2016. If he had cash in his hand of Rs. 21,00,000/, what was the necessity to deposit only R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Sec.115BBE of the income tax act, 1961." 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows: "5....... ..........Through ground no. 2. the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 21.00,000/- u/s 69A. During this-appeal proceeding, the appellant has reiterated his contention which was submitted before AO that the source of cash deposit of Rs. 21,00,000/- in old currency in bank on 23.11.2016 was out of cash withdrawal of Rs. 32,00,000/-between 17.06.2016 to 28.07.2016. I have considered the submission of the appellant and the assessment order. The appellant has submitted computation of income, Capital account, statement of affairs, schedule of rent receipt and list of immovable properties for the current year as well as for A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. From these documents, it is noticed that the appellant has shown income from house property and income from other sources for current year and income from house property, commission income and income from other sources for A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The agricultural land are owned by agriculturist who are rural based. Moreover, in villages, banking facilities are not available. To buy lands one needs to visit the location of agricultural land and if found fit for purchase, negotiation take place with the land owner for acquisition and at price at which land could be purchased. The transaction is not instantaneous and each settlement of transactions requires quite a few visits and negotiation. Further, once the land is found fit to be purchased it becomes imparent to have a grip on transactions by paying some advance money to the land owner. With this in view a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was drawn on 17.06.2016 and on the visit to sites it came to light that for the prevalent rates some more money may he required, Hence further sums of Rs. 7 lakhs & 8 lakhs were drawn on 23.06.2016 & 11.07.2016 respectively. Thereafter quite a few attempts were made to finalise the property but no deal materialized. Therefore, since the deed could not go through a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs were deposited in bank on 26.07.2016 retaining the balance cash for further attempt for acquisition of property. 12. However, on 08.11.2016, the demonetization was ann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le. e) The assessee with a view to acquire a property was trying to locate property on the village side and the villagers who would have to give a valuable asset like immoveable property would like to deal in cash. f) AO does not have any iota of an evidence to state / prove that the appellant has used the money for some other clandestine purposes. A bold allegation without any evidence / proof cannot be made in assessment order and such allegation cannot be the basis for making addition to returned income. 10. To sum up, I hold that source for cash deposits of Rs. 21 lakhs is out of available cash balance as on 08.11.2016. As per the statement above, it is clear that a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs was withdrawn on 17.06.2016, 23.06.2016, 11.07.2016 and 28.07.2016 from the State Bank of India, Channapatna Branch. The same was not utilized and the cash was lying with the assessee. The AO has not proved that cash withdrawn by assessee has not been utilized for some other purpose. In other words, the assessee cannot be expected to prove the negative that he had not utilized the cash withdrawal for some other purpose. It was the actual cash in hand lying with the assessee which was subsequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CIT(A) has given relief only to the extent of Rs. 10.70 lakh. However, the department has no material to show that the earlier withdrawals made by the assessee has been spent for any specific purposes and not the said amount available with the assessee to redeposit into the bank account. There is also no evidence that the assessee has made withdrawals on various dates for any other purposes than the admission of assessee's son in a medical college. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the withdrawals have not been utilized to redeposit with the bank account. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the assessee has withdrawn the cash and the same remained to be unutilized for one reason or the other, and the cash remained with the assessee. In such circumstances, due credit has to be given for such withdrawal of cash by the assessee. In my opinion, In my opinion, similar view was taken by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri.Mathew Philip v. ITO [ITA No.443/Coch/2019 - order dated 29.11.2019] wherein it was held as under:- "10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to cash d....