Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1630 - AT - Income TaxAddition of cash deposit with bank - onus to prove - case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment as per CASS - HELD THAT - Primary onus to prove genuineness of transaction is on the assessee. Before both the authorities below, the assessee tried to give some fallacious explanations, such as entry appearing in the bank statement was due to error committed by the bank officials; that the bank official suggested to reflect cash deposit and on the same day asked the assessee to issue two cheques worth ₹ 13.00 lakhs and ₹ 12.00 lakhs in order to neutralize the same, without actual physical movement of cash. These are bald statement to hoodwink the Revenue for evading taxes, without any iota of evidence. Even before me also, the assessee could not offer any explanation to justify the source deposits, what to talk of any cogent and convincing piece of evidence. CIT(A) has recorded a finding that the appellant s contention that he has not deposited the cash loan is contrary to the documents furnished by the bank, which clearly showed that cash ₹ 25 lakhs has been deposited on 09.10.2009 in the assessee s saving bank account and on the same day, cash of ₹ 12 lakhs and ₹ 13.00 lakhs have been withdrawn vide cheque - Both these copies of the documents furnished by the bank to the Revenue have not been refuted by the assessee - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against addition of cash deposit in bank account. Analysis: 1. The assessee appealed against the addition of a cash deposit of ?25,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment based on information received, revealing cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. 2. The assessee denied making the deposits, attributing them to mistakes by bank officials. The bank asked for cheques to reverse the entries, claiming no physical cash movement occurred. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced and added the amount to the assessee's income. 3. The First Appellate Authority considered the bank's cash deposit slips and the remand report. The assessee explained that the bank helped create a book entry to show a higher balance for a university admission requirement. The Authority found no merit in the explanations and upheld the addition. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the genuineness of the cash deposit. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence to prove the transactions' legitimacy. The bank's documents clearly showed the cash deposits and withdrawals, contradicting the assessee's claims. 5. Section 68 of the Act places the onus on the assessee to prove the genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations lacking evidence and dismissed the appeal. The impugned addition by the Revenue was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. 6. The Tribunal pronounced the judgment on 14th November 2019, upholding the addition of the cash deposit and dismissing the assessee's appeal.
|