TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo). 2. The background facts culled out from assessment-order are such that the AO received an information from SFT (Statement of Financial Transactions) indicating that the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- in A/c No. 30847054223 with State Bank of India, Moti Chowk, Khagaul, Patna (Bihar) branch during demonetization period. Initially, the AO issued a query-letter dated 14.03.2017 to assessee asking to furnish response regarding source of deposit to which the assessee replied that "Cash withdrawal self account dated 11.08.2016, then re-deposited on 16.11.2016". Thereafter, the AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) on 12.03.2018 calling the assessee to file return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.1 Ground No 2 is directed against the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the AO') making addition of cash deposit of Rs 10,00,000. I have carefully perused the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. The AO found that the appellant has deposited cash amounting to Rs 10,00,000 in the bank account no 30847054223 maintained with State bank of India during the demonetization period i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. I find that in the grounds of appeal the appeal and in her submission dated 11.10.2023, the appellant had submitted that the amount belong to her and she had withdrawn 10 Lakh on 11/08/2016 for her personal purpose to purchase the plot but as the same did not happened, hence the amount was deposited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hence the amount was deposited again to her account, that fact remains that the source of Rs. 10,00,000 is not explained as she has claimed that she is a housewife and has no source of income and therefore the claim of past savings is not tenable and believable. The explanations offered by the appellant are not satisfactory, is contradictory and is not backed by any supporting evidences. Further, various notices were issued to the appellant and even served on her daughter. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim ignorance of the notices. The appellant has not submitted any evidences of her having intimated the AO regarding change in her address. The notices were duly sent to the address available in the department database. In view of the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Cash Withdrawal Self". Ld. AR submitted that this withdrawal was made by assessee for personal purpose to purchase a plot but since the same could not happen, the amount was re-deposited in bank a/c on 16.11.2016. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed this very explanation to the AO in response to query-letter dated 14.03.2017 initially issued by AO, which was much prior to the issuance of first notice dated 12.03.2018 u/s 142(1). He submitted that the assessee could not make any submission before AO during assessment-proceeding because the AO's notices did not reach to him but during first-appeal, the assessee submitted the very same explanation to CIT(A) also. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee's another explanation (which the CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment u/s 144. Then, he submitted that the CIT(A) has also observed three contradictory explanations of assessee as to the source of deposit, namely (i) the deposit was made by utilizing cash withdrawal made from bank, (ii) the deposit was made out of past savings, and (iii) the deposit was made out of sale of vegetables. He submitted that even if first two explanations are merged in the sense the past savings were accumulated/held in the form of credit balance in bank a/c from which the cash withdrawal was made; the third explanation given by assessee is certainly contradictory to first two. Therefore, according to Ld. DR, the CIT(A) has rightly rejected assessee's entire explanation and upheld addition. He prayed to uphold the addition....