Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (1) TMI 736 - AT - Income TaxUnexpalined Cash deposited in bank account - unsatisfactory explanation as to the nature and source thereof - HELD THAT - The assessee s explanation is phony. Not only there is no evidence as to source (other than withdrawal from bank during the current year) there is also no explanation for holding the same. Equally discrediting of her explanation is the time of deposit; it being also doubtful if she was in Jabalpur on 19.12.2016 the date of deposit inasmuch as she is stated to have left Jabalpur immediately after her marriage on 08.12.2016 which is also cited as the reason for an affidavit qua cash deposit having been furnished by her father. The cash withdrawal of rs. 66, 000 during the year (prior to 09/11/2016) is undisputed. No part of it; the last withdrawal being at rs. 10, 000 on 30/7/2016 however can be regarded as held on 08/11/2016 considering her forthcoming marriage for which cash is stated to be withdrawn. In fact the entire withdrawal is from April to July 2016 at Mumbai to which place there is no reference in the assessee s explanation from her accounts with PNB Axis Bank making it clear that the full facts in relation to the same have not been stated/clarified. No credit in its respect could thus be allowed. The assessee s explanation for the impugned cash deposit has in my view been therefore rightly regarded as unsatisfactory by the Revenue finding her case as wholly unevidenced. Affidavit of the assessee s father (dated 10.10.2019) stating that no cash had been deposited (on 19.12.2016) in old currency found false could not be held against the assessee as he was not cross-examined - The said affidavit stood retracted on 14.10.2019 stating that some of it may have been in old currency. In this regard even as observed during hearing what value the said affidavit when it is an undisputed fact that cash (in old currency) at rs.2.47 lacs was deposited in bank on 19.12.2016 and toward which the assessee had in fact also furnished a disclosure on 07.02.2017 (PB pgs. 36-38). Nothing thus turns on the said affidavit apart from speaking very poorly of the assessee s father who issued the statement without confirming the facts. In fact the affidavit being admittedly and materially incorrect the argument is also without merit. Cash deposited with bank stands duly recorded in the assessee s books of account no addition u/s. 69A could be made - First where recorded in account books it is the truth of those entries that section 68 requires the assessee to prove. And where not section 69/69A likewise requires an assessee to prove the nature and source of an asset found as against the sum credited signifying receipt that he is required to explain u/s. 68. The two sections are thus in pari materia and it would therefore matter little whether the books of account are maintained or not as either way an assessee is required to explain the nature and source of the sum under reference. Though that represents trite law reference in this regard be usefully made to CIT v. Jauharimal Goel 2005 (4) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT As explained in CIT v. Kamaraja Pandian 1983 (9) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT the genuineness of a credit transaction is to be in view of section 68 established by the assessee inspite of entries to that effect in his books of account. The second reason which may not be required to be dilated upon in view of the first is if a compilation of bank entries in any case available in the form of bank account statement could by itself i.e. without any supporting documents be regarded as valid books of account in law. The accounts as noted do not reveal the activity being pursued by the assessee much less of it being at Mumbai or the purpose for which cash is/was being withdrawn and accumulated much less thereat. In the context of the case it rather also raises the question if the cash withdrawn during earlier years assuming so was also at Mumbai and where so its relevance. - Decided against assessee.
|