TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., but the primary dispute revolves around the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as "AO"] under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], as unexplained money. Facts of the Case: 2. The assessee is an NRI, settled in the USA for several years. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs. 27,270/-. During the demonetization period, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 6,00,000/- each in his ICICI Bank account on 2nd and 3rd December 2016 totalling to Rs. 12,00,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO questioned the source of these cash deposits. The assessee explained that the funds were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of foreign exchange (USD) to Indian Rupees. The AO emphasized that any such conversion should be documented, typically through authorized forex dealers, which the assessee failed to provide. In response to the remand report, the assessee rebutted the AO's findings, asserting that the cash withdrawals from his ICICI and SBI accounts, along with USD brought from the USA, were the sources for the deposits made during demonetization. The assessee argued that the AO had failed to bring any contrary evidence or concrete proof to dispute the existence of the cash withdrawals or to demonstrate that the funds had been used elsewhere. The assessee further argued that the affidavit of Shri Mahesh Gadhia, his brother, should have been given more weigh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 4) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned AO in initiating penalty u/s 271 AAC (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 5) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act. The appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into the bank but were retained in hand for family and personal use. The cash was purportedly kept by his brother, Shri Mahesh Gadhia, as a custodian of the funds. The cash was intended for social and medical expenses for family members. The assessee further submitted that during the demonetization period in December 2016, the family members returned the borrowed amounts, and the entire sum was deposited in his ICICI Bank account. He argued that this explained the source of Rs. 8,30,000/- of the Rs. 12,00,000/- deposited during demonetization. The assessee provided the bank statements from ICICI and SBI accounts showing the cash withdrawals, an affidavit from Shri Mahesh Gadhia affirming that he held the funds as custodian and returned them....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and therefore, the AO had no grounds to disbelieve that the withdrawals were retained and later deposited during demonetization. The assessee pointed out that the AO failed to present any evidence showing that the withdrawn cash was used for other purposes (e.g., investments, personal expenses). Therefore, the presumption should be that the cash was available for deposits during demonetization. 6.3. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, we conclude that the cash withdrawals from ICICI and SBI, totalling to Rs. 8,30,000/-, were sufficiently documented. There is no evidence on record that the withdrawn funds were used for any other purposes, and the Department has not provided contrary evidence. Therefore, the Tribu....