Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 587 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - source of cash deposit is in controversy - additional evidence filed without following due procedure - Held that:- Except for the narrative made out towards deposit of ₹ 2,57,500/- out of old savings from 2001 to 2009, there is no cogent material to support the plea. Assessee has also not explained the reasons for holding such large cash in hand particularly when the assessee has already gone abroad (UK) for job purpose on 21.11.2009. Thus, we hardly find any semblance of bonafide in the plea of the assessee on the source of such cash deposits. The typical pattern of deposits below ₹ 50,000/- in multiple tranches only accentuates the lack of bonafides. Nevertheless, possibility of holding some cash at any point of time cannot be entirely ruled out. In the absence of any evidence, we resort to estimations for probable holding of cash by a person of ordinary prudence and assign the same to be ₹ 1 Lakh. Therefore, we deem cash deposit to the extent of ₹ 1 Lakh out of ₹ 2,57,500/- as explained. Accordingly, remaining addition to the extent of ₹ 1,57,500/- is sustained. As regards other deposit of ₹ 7,60,800/- out of cash withdrawals of ₹ 19 Lakhs claimed to have been withdrawn on 25.11.2011, the explanation from the assessee does not provide any satisfactory basis. The claim of the assessee that cash was withdrawn for proposed purchase of residential house property (which eventually did not take place) does not inspire confidence. A taxpayer would be expected to explain why such large amount of cash was needed for proposed purchase of residential house property. The entries in the bank statement also demonstrate that these sum were marked ‘chq. paid' which is unlike cash withdrawals. A bare and unverified confirmation from the HDFC bank (without any reference number) introduced before the Tribunal without following the procedure laid down in Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules is also curious. The circumstances for mentioning the ‘chq. paid’ where the cash was stated to be withdrawn is not explained in the impugned additional evidence. Simultaneously, it is also difficult to put blinkers on uncharacteristic pattern of re-deposits of small amounts allegedly having withdrawn such large amount of ₹ 19 Lakhs for the purpose which remained unserved. Therefore, we do not see any justifiable reasons to admit the additional evidence on record at this juncture attempted to be introduced without following the prescribed procedure. The assessee in the instant case has only made out a narrative which remains unexplained. In the light of above discussion, the additional evidence filed without following due procedure and without showing the bonafides cause for its belated admissions deserves to be rejected and the action of the Revenue requires to be upheld except to the extent of an estimated sum of ₹ 1 Lakh. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|