TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal:- "1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 11.12.2024 for A.Y.2017-18 by NFAC CIT(A) Delhi [For short "CIT(A)"] upholding the addition of Rs. 17 lakhs towards cash deposits in Bank account as unexplained sources u/s 69A of the Act is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming addition Rs. 17 lakhs towards cash deposits in Bank account as unexplained sources u/s 69A of the Act. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase transaction did not materialize and the aforesaid cash amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/-, which had earlier been withdrawn by the assessee was redeposited by the assessee in to the same bank account on 11.11.2016 ( Rs. 7,00,000/-) and 06.12.2016 (Rs. 50,00,000/-). Accordingly, the assessee's submission was that the source of the cash deposit was fully explained as having sourced out of withdrawals made by the assessee from the same bank account. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept contention of the assessee and added a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by the Assessing Officer with the following observations: "6.1 During the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs out of the total unexplained sum of Rs. 17 lakhs is confirmed. Whereas with regard to the balance addition of Rs. 7 lakhs the assessee failed to trace this cash deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs to any accounted sources by way of bank statements. Accordingly, the balance addition of Rs. 7 lakhs out of the total unexplained sum of Rs. 17 lakhs is confirmed. 6.3 In the absence of these crucial evidences as mentioned in Para 6.2 of this order the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. In support of the decision the undersigned relies on the following case laws, wherein it has been held that burden of proof in respect of cash credits lies on the assessee only. 1. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 323 (Madhya Prade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cash had been withdrawn from the same bank account and re-deposited by the assessee into the same bank account. The Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on judicial precedents in support of contention that unless the Assessing Officer brings any cogent material to show that such cash withdrawn by the assessee had been utilized for some other purpose, then it has to be presumed that the subsequent deposit has been sourced out of earlier withdrawals made by the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 9. It is a well settled law that if the assessee is able to show that it had made cash withdrawals from which the deposits were made, then it would be reasonable to infer that the source o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h assessee was invested or utilized for any other purpose, it was not open to authority to make addition on basis that assessee failed to explain source of deposits. In the case of Ajit Bapu Satam 147 taxmann.com 222 (Mumbai - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee contended that cash which was withdrawn by assessee from bank was deposited in very same bank account and he provided details of cash withdrawal from bank account and cash so withdrawn was lying with him and was not used anywhere else, since both cash withdrawal and deposit were duly substantiated from bank statement of very same branch of bank and there was no findings by lower authorities that cash available with assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose, cash ....