TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disregarded the appellant's submission that she is not the owner of the amount deposited in her bank account, totalling Rs. 2,33,12,575/-, as per the definition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the addition of this amount under section 69A is both unjustified and legally unsustainable. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to acknowledge the affidavit submitted during the appellate proceedings, which provided the name and PAN number of the actual owner of the cash deposited in the appellant's bank account. This oversight of a substantial piece of evidence undermined the factual basis of the decision, rendering the order of the CIT(Appeals) unsustainable and legally flawed due to the lack of proper examination of this critical affidavit and related documents. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) also disregarded the appellant's income pattern from the assessment year 2010-11 to 2017-18, which was presented in written submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), based on the Income Tax Returns filed. This income pattern clearly demonstrates that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bought to tax. During the appellate proceeding, notices were issued. and submissions were filed. Grounds of appeal are adjudicated as follows- Ground of Appeal One - Averment - Ld. JAO has erred in making deemed income addition under section 69A The primary conditions for invoking section 69A are (1) assessee should be found owner of bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles, which is not recorded in the books (i) the assessee offers no explanation of these assets/ investment, or the explanation is not found satisfactory. Therefore, initial burden is on the Revenue to show that (1) assessee is owner of certain bullion, jewellery etc. (i) such bullion, jewellery is not recorded in the books. Thereafter, burden will shift on the assessee to furnish explanation of such investment/assets. The burden of proof was on appellant after it was established by the revenue that cash deposits were made in bank account of the appellant. The same remains undischarged as of today. Thus, in view of absence of any plausible explanation from the side of the appellant, submission in rejected. Ground of Appeal Two - Averment - that cash deposits were out of sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nership is guarantee of law, the possession is guarantee of facts. It is settled proposition of law that best evidence of ownership is the fact of possession. This presumption is best illustrated in case of cash found in the possession of the person, as property in cash is easily transferable from one person to another. Thus, where the assessee, the account holder, claims that cash deposited in his account belonged to some other person, than onus to prove different ownership other than the assessee is on the assessee. Failure of the assessee to prove that money found in his possession did not belong to him, addition u/s.69A would be justified. It will be wrong to put the onus on the Revenue to establish that the assessee from whose possession cash was found was not the owner of the cash. Reference can be made to ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs KTMS Mohamood 92 Taxman 169, by Hon'ble Madras HC wherein it held that onus is on appellant to explain the ownership. The headnotes are reproduced as below for a ready reference- Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 1967-68-In regard to cash amounting to Rs. 4,28,713....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tle is transferable by mere delivery of possession. In such a situation, unless any cogent explanation is given by the person in possession of cash to explain his possession and show that someone else was the owner of that amount of money, it is reasonable to assume that the cash belonged to the person from whose possession it was found as its owner. In view of the assessee's explanation for possession of the cash being rejected, it logically follows that the assessee was the owner of that unaccounted cash found in his possession and this is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.' In view of the discussion supra, ground of appeal is rejected. 6. Appeal for AY 2012-13 is dismissed." 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard; the paper book filed and the submissions made have been examined. It was argued by the Ld. AR that the assessee was a victim of entry operator and the assessee is not the owner of the money, therefore, the addition u/s 69A of the Act was not liable to be made. The Bench raised a query whether the bank accounts are of the assessee and wheth....