TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Year (AY) 2017- 18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, 'AO') u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2019. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "[1] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC ought to have given the findings on the round raised for applying section 69A of the Act by the Ld.A.O treating the cash deposit as not recorded in books of account. [2] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wanted to purchase a residential house at Vishakhapattam, for which he had withdrawn the cash. However, the deal was cancelled and the amount withdrawn was re-deposited in bank account. The AO did not find the explanation acceptable. The amounts of withdrawal were small amounts which was required to meet household expenses. Further, no details of proposed house at Vishakhapattam was given. The AO held that all earlier withdrawals were already spent and were not available for re-deposit. Since assessee could not explain the source of deposit, the AO added Rs. 18,46,500/- u/s 69A of the Act and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. The assessee filed written....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e., 23.11.2016. He, therefore, observed that the explanation of the assessee is a make-believe story without proper supporting evidences. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed paper book containing various details submitted to the lower authorities and some of case laws, where cash deposited in the bank account shortly after withdrawal was considered a reasonable explanation. He has also filed a written submission stating that provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. The AO has invoked the provisions of Section 69A without providing specific evidence to show t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Tribunal. The appellant explained that he had withdrawn various amounts in the immediately preceding financial years (FYs 2014-15 and 2015-16) and also during the subject year upto the demonetization period. The appellant had withdrawn Rs. 49,000/- on 19 occasions and Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- (Total : Rs. 18,46,000/-) starting from 27.06.2014 to 21.10.2016, such details are at page 17 of the paper book. The appellant himself submitted that he is a retired person and leads a very simple and frugal life. Hence, it is not understood as to why the appellant would keep on withdrawing cash so many occasions if he already had substantial cash-in-hand due to the earlier withdrawals. This is against normal human behaviou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omputation of income filed by the appellant (page-10 of PB), the sources of income were interest on SB account, pension received, interest on FD, NSC interest, other interests etc. Such income from other sources was Rs. 3,70,454/-. The appellant has not been able to establish the nexus of these disclosed sources with the cash deposited in the bank accounts. Hence, the impugned amount of Rs. 9,40,500/- sustained by us in the preceding para takes the character of unexplained money within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act. The appellant was found to be the owner of such money and he has not been able to offer explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the said money. As already discussed, the explanation offered by him was a....