TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the assessee are as under: "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,20,000/- on account of cash deposit in bank account without appreciating the source of cash deposit duly explained by e-proceedings. The Addition of Rs. 25,20,000/- should therefore be deleted. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act on cash deposited without appreciating the satisfactory explanation on the source of cash deposits. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before hearing." 3. Brief facts o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash balance. Cash book is also not maintained by the assessee and even cash flow statement was also not furnished for the AY.2016-17 to prove the huge cash kept in hand and deposited during demonetisation. The AO noted that assessee filed returns of income, declaring total income of Rs. 3,41,290/- and Rs. 3,71,590/- for AY.2016-17 and 2015-16 respectively. Hence, the contention of the assessee that the cash on hand has been deposited out of balance was not tenable. Further, no supporting documents were furnished by the assessee to substantiate his claim of huge cash balance of Rs. 31,07,483/-. Hence, the source of cash of Rs. 25,20,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account during demonetisation period remained unexplained. The AO mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opening cash balance in hand as on 01.04.2016 was Rs. 31,07,483/-. The cash in hand at the midnight of 08.11.2016 was Rs. 32,10,013/-, out of which Rs. 25,20,000/- was deposited in the bank. The appellant submitted that the reasons for cash withdrawal was that the current account does not allow interest on the balance kept therein; that there was no 'Chest facility'; that there was instability of the co-operative bank and that number of incidents of bank robbery/bank loot/cash snatching outside premises of the banks were taking place. He submitted that opening cash in hand as on 01.04.2014, 01.04.2015 and 01.04.2016 were Rs. 6,99,048/- Rs. 25,13,128/- and Rs. 31,07,483/- respectively. He has given a table where opening cash in hand, cash d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. The appellant could not give any proximate source of cash in hand, which she claims to have deposited during demonetization period. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by ld. AR. It is an undisputed fact that there were cash deposits of Rs. 25,20,000/- in the bank account of assessee maintained with The Surat Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. during demonetization period. The ld. AR has mainly relied on the return of income of AY.2016-17, where the cash in hand as on 01.04.2016 was Rs. 31,07,483/-. However, we find that the said return was not filed within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act and was filed much later on 18.03.2017....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er return of income. The appellant has not submitted the copy of the return for earlier assessment years. Be that as it may, the appellant has also not been able to controvert the findings of the lower authorities in the proceedings before us. In absence of credible and corroborative evidence to support the claim of the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2015 and 01.04.2016, the explanation of the appellant cannot be accepted in toto. The principle of 'human probability' is also clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant. The assessee is required to incur expenses for various personal and household purposes, which would cause depletion of the cash in hand available with the assessee. Since the return for AY.2016-17 was filed after demon....