TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 2016, would lead to irresistible conclusion that assessee was keeping unaccounted cash money of ₹ 15 lakhs with her at the time of demonetization period and the assessee realizing that such currency cannot be used anywhere, she deposited same in her bank account and purposely the return of income was filed belatedly on 25.03.2018 after expiry of the period provided u/s 139(1) for filing of the return of income within the period of limitation. There is a contradiction in the explanation of the assessee made before AO as well as before Ld. CIT(A). Thus assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposit in her bank account during demonetization period. Thus, assessee failed to explain the sources, therefore, no interference is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee u/s 69A of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the addition before Ld. CIT(A). The submissions of the assessee are reproduced in the appellate order in which the assessee made similar submissions that cash was deposited in three installments of ₹ 5 lakhs each on 19.11.2016, 24.11.2016 and 29.11.2016. It was submitted that there was a matrimonial dispute between the assessee s son and her daughter-in-law after the marriage which was performed in June, 2012. However, the daughter-in-law deserted the assessee S son in November, 2013. The assessee S son has filed a divorce petition in Family Court, Rohini on 18.10.2014. The assessee has taken a bank loan of ₹ 25,16,722/- in June, 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er years household savings. The cash was withdrawn in anticipation of settlement of a matrimonial dispute of the appellant s son and his spouse. It was stated that a divorce petition was filed on 18.10.2014. It is also stated that a bank loan of ₹ 25,16,722/- was taken for settlement of matrimonial dispute and the appellant withdrew ₹ 19,00,000/- between 16.06.2014 to 24.10.2014 in anticipation of settlement of matrimonial dispute. As has been rightly pointed out by the AO, the appellant s explanation does not appear to be acceptable or tenable. While the claim that the money withdrawn was out of the bank loan taken (no documentary evidence produced in this regard), the explanation regarding the cash deposit of ₹ 15 lacs d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below and submitted that when Rule of preponderance of probability is applied to the facts of the case, it is clear that assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposit in her bank account during demonetization period, therefore, appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 15 lakhs in her bank account during demonetization period. The assessment year under appeal is 2017-18 and the assessee deliberately filed the return of income belatedly on 25.03.2018. The assessee explained before AO the source of the cash deposit in the bank account was life time savings and cash withdrawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid in two installments. Thus, it is a story created by assessee for withdrawing the amount for settlement of the matrimonial dispute which has no connection whatsoever with the money withdrawn from the Bank. It may also be noted that the amounts withdrawn earlier in year 2014 from the bank account of the assessee was in ten installments of ₹ 1 lakh to ₹ 3 lakh respectively. When the matrimonial dispute was not settled till August, 2019, there was no reason for the assessee to keep the cash at home. When assessee made cash deposits of ₹ 15 lakhs in three installments in her bank account in November, 2016, would lead to irresistible conclusion that assessee was keeping unaccounted cash money of ₹ 15 lakhs with her at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
