9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment proceedings, in response to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer (AO), the submission on behalf of the assessee was that Rs. 2,44,000/- was deposited in his bank account maintained with HDFC Bank Limited out of his and his wife's past savings. Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee, the AO treated the amount of Rs. 2,44,000/- as unexplained cash deposits and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act'). The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income declared as per ITR : Rs. 6,31,336/- Addition u/s. 69A of the Act : Rs. 2,44,000/- : Rs. 8, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the contention of the appellant unsatisfactory toward the addition of Rs. 2,44,000/- as undisclosed income and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer without any base. D. Because the appellant is relying on the judgment of Delhi High court in The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, New Delhi Vs Hersh Washes her Chadha, ΙΤΑ 676/2023, in which if respondent/assessee had given specific explanation about the money and the record of the unexplained money is ingress in the bank account then that money cannot be treated as unexplained money under sec 69A. E. Because the learned C.I.T.(A) rejected the rectification application dated 05/12/2024 without application of mind stating that authority has no po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that the delay may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. 6. The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned. 7. In view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. During the course of hearing before me, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is a retired Government employee and that while explaining the source of income, it was stated before the authorities below that the amount of Rs. 2,44,000/- was deposited in the joint Bank Account No. 01271330013259 of the assessee and his wife, Mrs Tah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n believed in absence of any evidence to the contrary. The AO has not brought on record anything to disprove the claim of the assessee that the deposit of Rs. 2,44,000/- was from his past savings or has made any allegation about undisclosed expenditure/investment. The AO must have concrete reasons based on evidence to reject the assessee's explanation. If the assessee has provided a reasonable explanation, mere disbelief or suspicion is not sufficient to make an addition under the Income Tax Act. Once the assessee explains the source of deposits, the onus shifts to the AO to prove that such explanation is incorrect or unsatisfactory. If the AO has not brought any contrary evidence to disprove the claim, the addition is unwarranted. There ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
