2025 (11) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reads as under: "That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs. 11,24,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The addition so made and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, and against the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual deriving income from pension and horticulture, filed his return declaring total income of Rs. 2,73,150/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,83,116/-. 3.1 During scrutiny, the AO noticed cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 11,24,000/- during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016) - Rs. 2,63,000/- in Canara Bank, Rohru and Rs. 8,61,000/- in Punjab National Bank, Rohru. 3.2 The assessee ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty u/s 271AAC(1). 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the AO, holding that the assessee's claim of keeping Rs. 11,10,000/- in hand was improbable. It was observed that small withdrawals after 27.09.2016 disproved the claim that the entire loan proceeds remained unutilized. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 11,24,000/- was upheld in full. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal on the grounds mentioned in the appeal. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the source of the cash deposits stood duly explained through identifiable loan disbursals received from Canara Bank in the months of September and October 2016. It wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... lakh remained in cash for nearly two months was highly improbable and contrary to normal human conduct. It was further emphasized that under the provisions of section 69A of the Income-tax Act, the onus squarely lies upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the money found in his possession, and that in the present case, the assessee had failed to discharge this statutory burden by furnishing any contemporaneous or corroborative evidence. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was a co-borrower of a housing loan jointly sanctio....