2022 (4) TMI 857 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed expenses - assessee has not provided any sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims - HELD THAT - In case any piece of evidence is available with the assessee or any explanation for the source of cash deposits, the assessee would have submitted before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) would have considered the same. When the assessee has not rebut the averments of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A), there is no question of remitting the matter back to the file of authorities below for affording one more opportunity of being heard since the assessee has not furnished any piece of evidence or any explanation for the source of cash deposit, we are unable to accept the plea raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and accordingly, the plea of the ld. Counsel is rejected.- Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of unexplained cash deposits for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Addition of undisclosed expenses for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Analysis:
Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash deposits
In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer added unexplained cash deposits and interest income for the assessment year 2013-14, as well as unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed expenses for the assessment year 2014-15. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits satisfactorily. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of unexplained cash deposits for both years as the assessee failed to rebut the Assessing Officer's averments by providing necessary explanations or evidence.

Issue 2: Addition of undisclosed expenses
Regarding the addition of undisclosed expenses, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition for both assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 after considering the submissions of the assessee. However, the appeals were filed by the assessee before the Tribunal challenging the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal heard both sides and reviewed the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in the cash deposits made by the assessee in her bank accounts for both years. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence for the source of these cash deposits, leading to the confirmation of the additions by the ld. CIT(A) and subsequently by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the assessee did not furnish any evidence or explanation for the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal rejected the plea for one more opportunity to be heard, emphasizing that the assessee had not rebutted the Assessing Officer's averments before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to confirm the addition of unexplained cash deposits for both assessment years.