TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advance payment made to Revanta Multistate CGHS Ltd., Dwarka, New Delhi and amount of Rs. 1,09,535/- in A/c No. 711101100077874 in Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Khiriyawan, Aurangabad and amount of Rs. 92,265/- in A/c No.50100132091399 in HDFC Bank, Gagan Vihar, New Delhi, in the name of the Appellant Shri Gajendra Narayan. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Shri Gajendra Narayan has challenged the Impugned Order on the ground that it is bad in law and has been passed without application for mind since the Appellant has explained the deposit of cash in his bank accounts. Ld. Counsel stated that the Appellant was a teacher from 01.05.2013 to 31.01.2014 in District Chapra at a monthly salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month. Thereafter, he joined Directorate of Education, Government NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 11.02.2014. Ld. Counsel stated that the marriage of the Appellant was solemnized with Ms. Kumari Soni daughter of Shri Sandeep Yadav @ Shri Vijay Yadav on 21/22.02.2016 at the Community Center, Gagan Vihar, Delhi. He had come to know Ms. Kumari Soni in 2015 and fell in love with her. After the marriage, a reception was hosted on 28.02.2016 at his native village Bardih, Post Khiriyawan, District....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to demonetization on 08.11.2016, the Appellant deposited in his account Rs. 2,48,000/- on 13.11.2016. As such his mother had brought to Delhi from his village Rs. 1,95,000/-, and him having received further cash gifts on celebration of first Chatth festival on 06.11.2016. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Shri Gajendra Narayan argued that merely for the reason that the paying slip for the cash deposited was signed by different persons, the attachment could not have been done. He further argued that since the cash has been deposited, it has been fallaciously presumed as proceeds of crime. Ld. Counsel stated that the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 are clear that the monetary gifts at the time of marriage is not a taxable income and the mandatory disclosure of assets is required from only those persons whose income from all sources is more than Rs. 50,00,000/- per month. Ld. Counsel also argued that in none of the cases made out against other persons viz Shri Sandeep Yadav and Shri Dhanik Lal Mandal there has been any allegation of receipt of cash. Ld. Counsel stated that there is erroneous finding in the Impugned Order that the explanation given by the Appellant is wrong, since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ques drawn on the account of the Appellant held with the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (MBGB), Aurangabad, Bihar. Further analysis of the bank account in Gramin Bank reflects five cash deposits of Rs. 50,000/- each and six cash deposits of Rs. 75,000/- each between 21.05.2016 and 08.06.2016. The explanation of the Appellant that these cash deposits were from cash gifts received during the marriages cannot be accepted as deposits were made after few months of the marriage and by different persons and on different dates, as brought out by the cash deposits slips. Ld. Counsel alleged that the cash was nothing but proceeds of crime generated by his father-in-law Shri Sandeep Yadav. Ld. Counsel further contended that if cash deposits of Rs. 7,25,000/- in his bank account in Khiriyawan and Rs. 4,13,000/- in his HDFC Bank account in New Delhi are added, then it clearly shows that total sum of Rs. 11,38,000/- was disproportionate to known sources of income of the Appellant Shri Gajendra Narayan and his family put together. Ld. Counsel further stated that cash deposits of Rs. 18,65,994/- had been made during the Financial Years from 2015-16 to 2017-18 in his four bank accounts at MBGB, Khiriyawa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the form of five deposits of Rs. 50,000/- each on 31.05.2016, 01.06.2016 (thrice) and 02.06.2016. Further six cash deposits of Rs. 75,000/- each were made on 02.06.2016 (twice), 04.06.2016 (twice) and 08.06.2016 (twice). The Appellant gave an explanation that the cash gifts were deposited in tranches because of security issue and the distance between his native village and the bank branch. However, we find that on the same date, more than once same amount has been deposited separately. Except on 31.05.2016, we find that on other four dates, cash deposits were made more than once. In fact, on 01.06.2016 and on 02.06.2016, cash deposits were made thrice. The reasoning with regard to security as well as with respect to distance of the bank branch from his village cannot stand in the face of such facts. There is no cogent explanation from the Appellant as to the necessity for the signature of various persons on the deposits slip for cash. Moreover, it is not explained that why so much of cash was allowed to remain at his house even though the same was received in February, 2016, for almost over two months, before the same were deposited in tranches within a week. The Appellant has al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2025 has alleged artificial inflation of value of the proceeds of crime. It has been contended that during the course of investigation a cash placement of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the Appellant's account in MBGB has been mentioned, however, a payment of Rs. 8,28,400/- has been found as the amount integrated. Perusal of the Impugned Order does not reveal any double counting, as it is categorically stated that it is only Rs. 7,00,000/- which is the amount transferred from MBGB, which has been attributed to Shri Sandeep Yadav and hence found to be proceeds of crime. It is on record that Rs. 8,28,400/- has been referred to in the context of the account of the Appellant in HDFC Bank, New Delhi. The nature of deposits in this account has already been dealt with in this paragraph. 9. We find that the investigation under PMLA revealed that for the Assessment Year 2017-18 the total income declared by the Appellant Shri Gajendra Narayan in his ITRs was Rs. 6,88,869/- out of which Rs. 2,54,848/- had been invested. It is an admitted fact that cash deposits of Rs. 11.38 lakhs were made in his bank accounts. The statements of the Appellant in his pleading that the Income Tax Act does not require m....