TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed for A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that the appellant had maintained the records of cash transactions over the years, and even then, added the opening cash balance of Rs. 10,98,810/- for the year under consideration under section 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money. Such an addition is prayed to be deleted. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,98,810 under section 69A, ignoring that in the first year of business of F&O (AY 2016-17), all transactions were carried out through banking channels, no cash was introduced or utilized, and therefore the closing cash balance being N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsistency led the Assessing Officer to issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain how a substantial opening cash balance could exist when the immediately preceding year reflected nil cash. In response, the assessee submitted that in earlier years he was not required to furnish balance sheet details as his income consisted of salary, house property, capital gains, and other sources, and therefore the cash balance was not reported in the return though books were maintained. The assessee further submitted that in A.Y. 2016-17 i.e. previous assessment year, he entered into Futures & Options transactions, which were treated as business income, and due to losses and ITR requirements, the closing cash balance was shown as "Nil" by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act") and added the same to the income of the assessee. The total assessed income was thus determined at Rs. 95,84,990/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC were also initiated. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), contending that the addition under section 69A of the Act was unjustified. The primary submission of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) was that the cash balance was sourced from past withdrawals from bank accounts out of income already offered to tax, and merely because earlier ITRs did not require disclosure of balance sheet items, the cash could not be treated as unexplained. The assessee also reiterated that proper books of account and balance sheets w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer's observation regarding abnormal conduct, namely, accumulation of large cash without any corresponding cash expenditure and minimal deposit during demonetization, which weakened the credibility of the assessee's claim. 9. Thus, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him under section 69A to explain the nature and source of the cash. The addition of Rs. 10,98,810/- made by the Assessing Officer was therefore upheld in full, and all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 10. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 11. We have he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantial taxable income over the years. The explanation of the assessee that the cash represents accumulation of withdrawals from bank out of income already subjected to tax has not been found to be factually incorrect; rather, it has been rejected primarily on the basis of presumptions. 14. Further, it is pertinent to note that the assessee has placed on record his returned incomes for earlier years, which are substantial in nature, being approximately Rs. 1.92 crores for assessment year 2013-14, Rs. 31 lakhs for assessment year 2014-15, Rs. 47 lakhs for assessment year 2015-16 and Rs. 1.50 crores for assessment year 2016-17. These returned incomes, which have not been disputed by the Revenue, clearly demonstrate the financial capacity....