TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 nor the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 7,42,397/- out of the same. 2 That the aforesaid addition of Rs. 7,42,397/- sustained U/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the materials on record, based on irrelevant considerations and non-consideration of relevant material and therefore not sustainable either in facts or in law. 3 That the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), ignored the fact that the entire cash deposits made during the demonetization period was out of funds available with the appellant and therefore on the facts of the case, no addition U/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was unwarranted. 4 That the appellant craves leave to submit and/or alter any ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on showing total income of Rs. 27,41,140/- primarily from house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS), with the primary issue being the unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 37,00,000/- during the demo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee substantial relief of Rs. 27,57,603/- by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 6. Ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 relate to the addition of entire cash deposit made during the demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act and the same being subjected to the provision of section 115BBE of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) not being justified in partially sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,42,397/- out of the same. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee had filed the return of income showing total income of Rs. 27,41,140/- and the notice for hearing was issued to furnish certain particulars as asked for by the Ld. AO. The assessee had earned income from house property and income from other sources. A sum of Rs. 37 Lakh was found deposited during the demonetization period and the source of income was from rental income which was received through banking channel. As per the assessment order, out of the total amount of Rs. 53 Lakh deposited during the year relevant for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. AO gave a margin of Rs. 2 Lakh for savings in cash for emergency needs and charged tax u/s 115BBE of the Act on the amount of Rs. 35 Lakh which was added u/s 69A of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was required to file written submissions along with evidences/documents but no compliance was made. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the assessment order considering the facts of deposit of Rs. 37 Lakh, the cash in hand as on 01.04.2015 and 01.04.2016 and also on various periods relating to the period of demonetization as well as prior to it for the impugned assessment year as well as previous assessment year and concluded that the Ld. AO found that the assessee had deposit is Rs. 37 Lakh in the bank account during the demonetisation period and the total deposit in the bank account during FY 2016-17 was of Rs. 53 Lakh. In the financial year 2015-16, the assessee had deposited Rs. 20,000/- in cash while Rs. 33,40,000/- were withdrawn. The summary made by the Ld. AO is also reproduced. He also considered the fact that cash in hand as on 01.04.2015 was Rs. 19,19,446/- and after accounting for the cash deposits in and withdrawals from the bank account, the cash balance as on 08.11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 which is claimed to be filed along with the return of income. In AY 2015-16 the assessee was having two bank accounts - one in Federal Bank bearing No. 11820200039681 and another in the State Bank of India bearing No. 20274684964, both in Fancy Bazar and incidentally the bank balance in the Federal Bank was Rs. 10,37,901/- while in the State Bank of India it was Rs. 2,657/-. The Ld. AR contended that there is no limit either under the I.T. act or any other law as to how much money can be withdrawn and kept at home but a perusal of the balance sheet shows that as on 31.03.2016 the balance is only Rs. 1,15,428/- in the Federal Bank while in State Bank of India the balance is Rs. 79,493/- but the cash in hand is shown at Rs. 59,69,145/- as on 31.03.2016, the return for which was filed on 22.11.2016 and the same does not appear to have been examined under scrutiny. Although the Ld. AR is correct in stating that there is no limit as to how much cash can be kept at home but the regular withdrawals made despite having two bank accounts only point to the fact that the assessee was in need of money, therefore, instead of earning whatever interest it could ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided by the Act lies upon the assessee. But in view of section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such case there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being unrebutted, can be used against him by holding that it is a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably. In the instant case, the amount was credited in capital account in the books of the appellant. The appellant had offered her explanation about the said receipts being her winnings from races. The said explanation had been considered in the light of the sworn statement of the appellant and other material on record The ITO and the AAC had not accepted the explanation offered by the appellant. The two members constituting the majority in the Settlement Commission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was alleged that these tickets were obtained through fraudulent means, it was upon the alleger to prove that it was so, ignored the reality. The transaction about purchase of winning ticket took place in secret and direct evidence about such purchase would be rarely available. An inference about such a purchase had to be drawn on the basis of the circumstances available on the record. Having regard to the conduct of the appellant as disclosed in her sworn statement as well as other material on the record, an inference could reasonably be drawn that the winning tickets were purchased by the appellant after the event. The majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. It could not be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts had been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts were income of the appellant from other sources was not based on evidence. {emphasis supplied} Therefore, no case was made out for interference with the order....