TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RONEOUSLY UPHELD AN ADITION OF Rs. 33,12,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakh twelve thousand only) on account of the cash deposits. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the evidence and arguments submitted by the appellant. 3. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter vary and withdraw of any ground of appeal as the circumstances of the case may require at the time of hearing." 2. The assessee filed additional ground of appeal, after considering the same the Bench has dismissed the additional ground. We proceed to adjudicate the regular grounds of appeal. 3. The relevant facts are, the case of the assessee was reopened bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit with documentary evidences. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 33,12,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi with the delay of 113 days and the assessee has made similar submission before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Further, assessee has submitted that he had in totality withdrawn cash, totaling Rs. 22,55,000/- from the bank in multiple small amounts. These withdrawals were made to ensure liquidity during the medical emergency concerning the assessee's son, the same was as also mentioned in previous communications. The assessee later deposited the same amount Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount voluntarily. Since she is covered under the definition of "relative" under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act 1961, such a gift is not taxable in my hands. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) laid down the principle that when an affidavit is submitted as evidence and its contents are neither disproven nor challenged by cross-examination or contrary evidence, the facts stated therein must be accepted as true. Hence it must be treated as valid proof, and no adverse inference should be drawn. 5. After considering the detailed of submission of the assessee, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee on technical ground and with regard to cash deposit of Rs. 33,12,000/- di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income. At the stage of appeal proceedings also the appellant only filed basic details as mentioned above without and supporting documentary evidence which substantiates appellant's contention. 9.4 Further during the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the Ld. AO has incorrectly treated the entire cash deposit of Rs. 33,12,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69A, without considering the principle of Peak credit. In this regard, it is well established that Peak Credit Principle is not mandatory and cannot be applied automatically. It is discretionary and is applied only when evidence of rotation of funds is available. It was held in case of CIT Vs Vijay Agricultural Ind 294 ITR 610(All) that no peak to be applied. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... overlooking the cash withdrawals. He submitted that the Assessing Officer should have considered only net amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which the assessee has made the deposit during the year. This amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was also deposited by the assessee out of business income from dairy business and also loan from his sister in law, he prayed that the addition made by the AO is unjustified deserves to be deleted. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the detailed findings of lower authorities. 9. Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. I observed that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has sustained the addition on the basis that the assessee has not established the sources of cash deposit even though the Assessing Office....