Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 438 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits - assessee withdrawing huge cash on 4 occasions inspite of having sufficient cash in hand and no immediate use of cash, as pointed out by the AO in the show cause notice - as submitted assessee has withdrawn cash and there is a nexus with the deposits made by the assessee in the bank - AO noticed that assessee has redeposited cash of ₹.1.012 crores in the bank account during demonetization period HELD THAT:- In order to verify the sources for such deposit, AO asked the assessee to prove the sources for the same. Assessee submitted the detailed submissions with the cash book, which disclosed the availability of sufficient cash in hand. The AO did not accept the details of cash withdrawals declared by the assessee during the year. We observe from the submissions that the assessee has disclosed the sufficient funds available with him to deposit the same. There is no evidence with the Assessing Officer to dispute with the availability of funds with the assessee. We observe that assessee had sufficient funds more than the amount deposited in the bank. Merely because assessee did not explain the reasons for withdrawal and why not deposited full cash available in the cash book is not the proper reasons for the Assessing Officer to make addition. It is for the Assessing Officer to bring on record any contrary evidence that assessee has misused the funds available on the record. What is relevant is the source for the funds deposited in the bank account and assessee has proved that it has sufficient unutilised funds in the books. The availability of funds in the cash book supports the cash deposits in the bank. Therefore, Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the mandate unless he has contrary evidence. Therefore, we do not like to alter the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and it is not proper for Assessing Officer to apply preponderance of probity in this case. In our view, the case law relied by the Ld. DR are not relevant for the present case. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
|