Rakesh Dwivedi vs ACIT

(a). As per submission made by the assessee, the assessee received cash from Sh. Kalikho Pul amounting to Rs.60,00,000/- for representing the case Pema Khandu Vs The Speaker Arunachal Pradesh Assembly (Petition No. 09 of 2016). The Assessee was asked vide show cause notice dated 28/11/2019 to provide the confirmation from Sh. Kalikho Pul. The Assessee stated that since Sh. Kalikho Pul is no more, it is difficult to obtain the confirmation. The contention of the assessee not genuine from the information available on the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati's website, there were 14 petitioners to whom the assessee was representing in Pema Khandu Vs The Speaker Arunachal Pradesh Assembly (Petition No. 09 of 2016) case. The assessee could have obtained the confirmation from other parties as well. However, the same was not produced. Since the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the cash deposit, it is concluded that the cash received by the assessee of Rs.60,00,000/- was his unexplained income earned during the year under consideration. The Assessee failed has failed to substantiate his cash receipt from the parties representing the petitioner in the given matter.

(b)

As far as the cash receipt from BJP Uttrakhand is concerned, the Assessee submitted that he had received cash from BJP Uttrakhand for representing Special Appeal No. 795 of 2016 Sh. Harish Chandra Rawat Vs Union of India in the Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand. On careful perusal of the facts of the above case from the website sources maintained by the Jurisdictional High Court, it was found that the assessee was not even representing the case. Hence, it is very clear that the cash of Rs. 12,00,000/-was not received by the assessee from BJP Uttrakhand for representing the Special Appeal No. 795 of 2016. Therefore, the assessee was unable to provide confirmation from BJP Uttrakhand. Accordingly, it is concluded that the Cash of Rs. 12,00,000/- was unexplained income of the assessee earned during F.Y. 2016-17. Relevant portion of the Writ petition is reproduced here as under-

(c). Also, it would not be wrong to say that this deposit of Rs.72 lakhs was on account of unexplained receipts by the Assessee. The Assessee submitted that he received this Rs.72,00,000/- in the months of April, 2016 and May. 2016. When we scrutinize this deposit of Rs.72,00,000/-on the principle of Preponderance of Human Probabilities, it becomes difficult to accept that the assessee have had received the above cash in the months of April & May and kept the same with him till November without utilizing the same. As submitted by the assessee, his entire professional receipts were in cheque for AY 2017-18. But Rs.60.00.000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- were the only cash receipts for the A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee submitted in his reply dated 06.12.2019 that he could not refuse the cash receipts as these were received from clients linked with politics Also as submitted by the assessee, he intended to spend this Rs. 72.00.000/- for the marriage of his son which was planned for October, 2016. But this marriage could not take place for some reasons. The course of events which took place immediately after October, 2016 was the announcement of demonetization. Hence, this quantum of Rs.72.00,000/- which the assessee could have easily spent on the marriage of his son without bringing the same under the tax net (because it was received in cash and cash has no trail). Somehow, this could not take place after the sudden announcement of demonetization. As a result, the Assessee had to deposit the same and accounted the same under his professional receipts to avoid declaration of the same in the PMGKY/IDS and avoiding penalty thereon. In view of the facts as mentioned in para no. 4 to 4.3 above, the cash of Rs.72,00,000/- deposited by the assessee in the bank is treated as unexplained income of the assessee. Accordingly, Rs.72,00,000/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, penalty u/s 271AAC of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated separately. (Addition of Rs.72,00,000/-) (emphasis supplied by us)

“6.1.1

As noted by the AO the assessee failed to substantiate his cash receipts from the 14 parties in respect of the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati. It is seen from the writ petition that Shri Kalikho Pul was one of the 14 parties. Indeed the name of Shri Kalikho Pul appears as 13th petitioner in writ petition whereas the other 13 petitioners are (1) Pema Khandu, (2) Kumar Waii. (3) Kameng Dolo, (4) Markio Tado, (5) Jarkar Gamlin, (6) P.D. Sona, (7) Mutchu Mithi, (8) Kamlung Mossang. (9) Phosum Khimhun, (10) Wanglin Lowangdong, (11) T. Wangham, (12) Lombo Tayeng and (14) T.N. Thongdak. It could not be the case that the entire advocate fee of Rs.60,00,000/- was borne by Late Shri Kalikho Pul because the matter pertains to all the 14 persons and therefore, the other 13 persons could have also borne their share of advocate fees. In such case confirmations from the other 13 parties could have been easily obtained by the assessee. But he did not do so, which only means that the cash deposit of Rs.60,00,000/- was not the advocate fee charged from the 14 persons. Moreover, the cash of Rs.60,00,000/- claimed to have been received on 15.04.2016 should have been deposited immediately into the bank account of the assessee wherein his regular professional receipts were received. But the assessee did not do so and rather claimed that he kept the cash of Rs.60,00,000/- with him for nearly seven months. In the absence of necessary confirmations from the parties and on the weight of preponderance of probabilities the cash deposit of Rs.60,00,000/- made during demonetization period cannot be linked to unsubstantiated claim of receipt of Rs.60,00,000/- in cash from those 13 parties. Furthermore, the assessee also made submission in appellate proceedings that he raised invoices for Rs.60,00,000/- against the 14 parties in Apr 2016 itself, however, which were not submitted before the FAA (First Appellate Authority). Even otherwise if it were to be believed that invoices were raised in Apr 2016 then the cash of Rs.60,00,000/- should have been deposited in the bank account in Apr 2016 itself so that this amount could be counted as professional receipts/turnover. But the assessee did not do so, which only suggests that the assessee is trying to create a concocted story with an after thought to explain the sources of Rs.60,00,000/-. 6.1.2 Further, as noted by the AO the assessee failed to substantiate his cash receipts of Rs. 12,00,000/- claimed to be received from BJP Uttarakhand. In this case the professional fee claimed to be received of Rs. 12,00,000/- was from a political organization which is professionally organized of confirmation was that there were a lot of changes in office bearers of BJP Uttarakhand Unit. This reason cannot be a tenable and acceptable reason for non furnishing of confirmation because the so called fee of Rs. 12,00,000/- must have been paid for the organizational purpose but not for any individual cause, in which case the outgoing office bearers must have surely and definitely noted in the books/accounts and briefed the incoming office bearers. In such a case it would not be difficult to obtain the confirmations from the Uttarakhand Unit of BJP. It appears that assessee made no efforts in obtaining confirmations from the party unit. Furthermore, the assessee also made submission in appellate proceedings that he raised invoices for Rs. 12,00,000/- against the Uttarakhand Unit of BJP in May 2016 itself; however, which were not submitted before the FAA (First Appellate Authority). Even otherwise if it were to be believed that invoices were raised in May 2016 then the cash of Rs. 12,00,000/- should have been deposited in the bank account in May 2016 itself so that this amount could be counted as professional receipts/turnover. But the assessee did not do so, which only suggests that the assessee is trying to create a concocted story with an after - thought to explain the sources of Rs. 12,00,000/-. 6.2 The appellant-assessee made another claim before the FAA that addition of Rs. 72,00,000/- u/s.69A leads to double taxation. His logic was that he already included this sum of Rs.72,00,000/- as his turnover. However, as explained in paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 the link between cash deposit of Rs. 72,00,000/- during demonetization period and receiving of the so called professional receipts of Rs.72,00,000/- in Apr/May 2016 could not be established by the assessee. Without prejudice to this, the assessee also did not submit the chronological break up of the professional receipts of FY 2016-17 so as to see how and when this 72,00,000/- was incorporated into turnover. In view of this the claim of the assessee of double taxation is not correct and hence rejected. 7. As a result, appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2017-18 is treated as DISMISSED.” (emphasis supplied by us)

“1.

The ld. CIT(A), (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in confirming an unwarranted addition of Rs. 72,00,000/- made by the Assessing officer.

2)

The ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 72,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, being cash deposited in bank account, despite the fact that the said amount has been recorded in books of accounts of the appellant.

3)

The ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in confirming the taxability of the additions under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that:-

a)

The source of income was properly explained before the A.O. and hence not covered within the ambit of Sec. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

b)

Taxing the impugned additions u/s 115BBE was not even mentioned in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I. Tax Act, 1961.

4)

The Id. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in upholding the taxability of same amount Rs. 72,00,000/-twice as despite taxing this amount u/s 115BBE, no allowance was provided by the A.O. for the income being included in total income and already taxed at the highest rate of tax i.e. 30% plus surcharge (15%) and cess (3%).

5)

The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal.”

“Ground No.2

The ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 72,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, being cash deposited in bank account, despite the fact that the said amount has been recorded in books of accounts of the appellant.

During the relevant assessment year assessee received two receipts in cash details of which are given below:

Date	Bill No.	Amount
15.04.2016	RD/1/2016-17	60,00,000/-
15.05.2016	RD/22/2016-17	12,00,000/-
		72,00,000/-

The cash received was deposited with ICICI bank account on 19.11.2016 during demonetisation period and details of the same were duly declared in cash Transactions, 2016 statement which was filed on Income Tax portal in the format sought by the department. The Col. No. B.5 of the statement clearly mentions the party wise details of the cash received from the parties. (enclosed in page no.222 of the paper book). Thus, from the very beginning transparency was maintained and the appellant declared the details of cash received from the parties and didn't resort to the amount being collected from Sundry parties. Though, being an Advocate he could have claimed giving services to sundry parties.

As a matter of fact, the total receipts during the year was Rs. 18,17,84,889/--The appellant is covered under Tax Audit and his books are duly audited. Clause no. 11 of the form 3CD (Tax Audit Report) clearly mentions that the bank book has been maintained by the appellant and the same has been examined by the Tax Auditor. The amount which is deposited in the bank account becomes part of the books of accounts and has to be properly documented by the assessee and at the same time has to be properly verified by the Tax Auditor. The Tax Audit Report, balance Sheet and Profit and loss account has been duly signed by the Tax Auditor.

As a matter of fact in dual system of accounting any amount which is shown as a receipt in the books of account has to be credited to an account. The amount received in books of account can't go undocumented. The balance sheet and profit and loss account which are based on the books of accounts show a clear picture of the financial transactions carried out during the year. Any receipt of amount could either be taken as an income or loan from a party or recovery of outstanding loan from a party. The Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD has sufficient clauses which put responsibility on the Tax Auditor to report such transactions which are not as per the legal compliances. Thus the possibility of such a transaction going unreported does not arise at all.

During the assessment proceedings, the appellant submitted all the details which were sought by the Id. A.O. but being not satisfied thereon the Id. A.Ο. added the same to the income of the assessee. The A.O. treated the cash deposited in the Bank account as unexplained income and thereby added the said sum Rs. 72,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

On Merits

The addition has been made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For sake of brevity the said section is reproduced hereunder:-

Unexplained money, etc.

69A. "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year"

The above section could be broken down as follows and as per the language following conditions must be fulfilled for applicability of section 69A:

1.

Assessee is found to be owner of any money, Bullion, Jewellery etc.

2.

Such Money is not recorded in the books of accounts, If any maintained by him for any source of income, and

3.

Assessee offers no explanation or explanation is found not satisfactory by AO

As per language of section, Section 69A can be invoked only when the assessee has not recorded such money in the books of accounts and offers no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation. Both the condition given in point no 2 and 3 are cumulative and satisfaction of either of condition does not automatically triggers rigours of section 69A.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central [2023] 150 taxmann.com 301 (SC) while explaining sec. 69A broke down the section as follows:-

"Turning more to section 69A, it may be broken down into the following essential parts:

a. The assessee must be found to be the owner;

b. He must be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles;

c. The said articles must not be recorded in the Books of Account, if any maintained;

d. The assessee is unable to offer an explanation regarding the nature and the source of acquiring the articles in question, or The explanation, which is offered, is found to be, in the opinion of the Officer, not satisfactory;

e. If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then, the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed as the income of the financial year in which the assessee is found to be the owner;

f. In the case of money, the money can be deemed to be the income of the financial year;

In other words, we can say that when the assessee has recorded such money in his books of accounts then no explanation is required to be offered for the purpose of section 69A. Addition u/s 69A can be made only when such money is not recoded in the books of accounts and not offered satisfactory reply.

The fact that the assessee is maintaining books of accounts is not disputed and furthermore, appellant is subject to Tax Audit u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act. A duly signed balance sheet with all annexures and a Tax Audit Report in From 3CB/3CD duly supports this.

As a matter of fact para No. 2 of the assessment order reads as follows:-

"The assesse, in response, filed the necessary details/information/documents etc. (on ITBA portal) as required. Books of accounts and vouchers were provided on the ITBA portal, during the course of assessment proceedings which were examined on test check basis."

Nowhere, in the assessment order the Id. A.O. has rejected the books of accounts.

Further, in show cause notice dated 28.11.2019 in para No. 2 the Id. A.O. has asked

"In your letter dated 08.11.2019 (uploaded on ITBA) you have submitted that total receipt on which TDS had been deducted was Rs. 16,80,39,889.00. Vide letter dated 22.11.2019 you have submitted that total receipt on which TDS had not been deducted was Rs. 1,42,75,000/- (Rs. 72,00,000 in cash and Rs. 70,75,000/- through banking channel). As per your submissions, your total receipts during the F.Y. 2016-17 were Rs. 18,23,14,889/- (Rs. 16,80,39,889 + Rs. 1,42,75,000). However, you had shown total receipts to the tune of Rs. 18,17,84,889/ in your ITR for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, you are required to explain the difference of Rs. 5,30,000/-. (Show cause notice dt. 28.11.2019 attached vide page no 181 to 182 of paper book).

Thus, in a way the Id. A.O. has accepted the receipts and has asked to explain the difference. This difference was properly explained by the appellant vide reply dated 06.12.2019 (page no. 185 of paper book).

The entire assessment order nowhere mentions that the Id. A.O. has disputed the total receipts of the assessee. Books of accounts have been duly accepted and examined on test check basis.

Thus, when the impugned receipts are part of the income and are duly entered in the books of accounts, and the facts stands established. applying sec. 69A would be against the law.

In this context we rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'B' in the case of Income Tax Officer v. J.K. Wood India (P) Ltd. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 208 Wherein the applicability of section 69A was struck down due to the fact that sales were recorded in the books of accounts. It was further held that

"We have given thoughtful consideration to the factual matrix discussed hereinabove. The undisputed fact is that there is not even a whisper of any defect, error or infirmity in the books of account maintained by the assessee which were audited both under the Companies Act and under the Income tax Act. The books of account have been maintained in the regular course of business and cash deposits in the books of account are duly reflected in the books of account".

We further rely on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'G' in the case of S. Balaji Mech-Tech (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2025] 170 taxmann.com 639

"The Assessing Officer/Commissioner (Appeals) cannot invoke the provisions of section 68 or 69A when the assessee has already declared the source for cash deposits in the books of account and the lower authorities without their being any material to support on their contrary view, the provisions of section 68 or 69A cannot be invoked. [Para 21]"

We further rely on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT (Vishakhapatnam) in the case of Sobha Devi Dilipkumar v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 160 taxmann.com 1249 wherein it was held that

"It is an undisputed facts that the assessee has disclosed the investment in his books of account and also shown the same in the computation of income which was offered for taxation. Therefore the assessee's contention that the provisions of section 69A are not applicable in the present case of the assessee as the cash deposits during the demonetization period are duly recorded in the assessee's books of account holds good. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case the addition made on account of unexplained money deserved to be deleted since the provisions of section 69A are not applicable in the case of the assessee". [Para 6]

We further rely on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Teena Bethala v ITO (ITA No-1383/Rang/2019, dtd 28-8-2019, wherein it was held that:

"On reading of section 69A, it is clear that the onus is upon the Assessing officer to find the assessee to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and such money, bullion jewellery or valuable article was not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by the assessee for any source of income. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer can resort to making an addition under section 69A of the Act only in respect of monies/assets/articles or things which are not recorded in the assessee 's books of account. In the case on hand, the cash deposits are recorded in the books of account and are reportedly made on the receipt from a creditor".

We further place our reliance on the decision on the decision of the ITAT-Mumbai Bench in the case of Dy. CIT v. Karthik Construction Co. In ITA No. 22292/Mum/2016, dated 23-2-2018 [2018 Taxpub (DT) 1507 (Mum-Trib)], wherein "the 'Bench at para 6 thereof has held that addition under section 69A of the Act cannot be made in respect of those assets I monies/'entries which are recorded in the assessee's books of account".

In view of the above submissions it is prayed that the addition of Rs. 72,00,000/- may please be deleted.” (emphasis supplied by us)

“Brief Facts: As mentioned in the order of the AO and that of the Ld. CIT(A)

Grounds taken by the appellant are strongly opposed in view of the detailed discussions in the order of AO/Ld CIT(A). In spite of sufficient opportunities the assessee miserably failed to furnish satisfactory explanation, with corroborative evidences, in respect the source cash deposit claimed to have been received as professional fee in cash from Late Mr. Kalikho Pul Ex CM Arunachal Pradesh and BJP Uttrakhand for Rs.60 tacs and Rs. 12 lacs respectively as elaborated in details by AO in Para 4.3 of the Assessment Order.

Further reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:.

Cash Deposit and ITR Filed): The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed an SLP as withdrawn by the assessee in the case of Sanjay Kapur Vs ACIT /2022/ 138 taxmann.com 207 [SC] order dated 16.03.2022. In this case there was cash deposit of Rs. 11.40 in bank account during demonetization. Though the said entry was reflected in the return of income yet no supporting evidences were available to prove source of such deposit. Consequently in Writ Petition Hon'ble High Court was of the view that there was reason to believe that income otherwise chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and upheld the reassessment proceedings.

[Cash Deposit claimed to be out of periodical withdrawals]: The Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Kavita Chandra Vs CIT in ITA 421 of 2016 [O&M] order dated 07.03.2017, has confirmed order of the ITAT when the deposits in Bank were made after a gap of two-three instances of withdrawals and taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) that the withdrawals were for the purpose of business and not available for redeposit. Further, the withdrawals were re-deposited after a gap of two or three months which was not probable. Thus, the assessee was not able to link the cash withdrawn from the bank with the cash deposit. Consequently, the finding of the CIT(A) with regard to treating the cash deposit of 14,20,212/- as unexplained income of the assessee was upheld by t Tribunal.

[Cash Deposit during demonization claimed to be out of sale proceeds): The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Pankaj Gupta Vs PCIT order dated 03.12.2024, [2025] 174 taxmann.com 747 [Orissa/ held that when explanation offered by assessee was no explanation at all and nature or source of acquisition of money was not explained, AO rightly termed it a unexplained money. Hon'ble Apex Court, as also dismissed SLP against this decision of Hon'ble Orissa High Court.

Further so far as the contention of the appellant that addition has wrongly been made in this case u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned, it is submitted that quoting or a wrong section or non quoting of any section is no fatal for an addition which was made on failure of the assessee to explain any sum as genuine.

1.

In this regard, reliance is placed on section 292B which states that no assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings taken by the authorities under the Act shall be invalid by reason of any mistake, defect or omission if such notice or proceedings or assessment is otherwise valid under the Act. This provision embodies the principle that mere non-mentioning or mentioning of a wrong provision of law in a proceedings or order can not be a ground to invalidate it if that is otherwise permissible and valid under law. In a number of judgments various courts have confirmed this principle like in the following:

a. In the case of Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah v/s Gordhanji Mafaji Thakor, Civil Appeal No. 10521 of 2013 (SC), it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that mere non-mention of a correct provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.

b. In the case of J. Kumaradasan Nair Vs. IRIC Sohan 2009 AIR SCW 1921 (SC) it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when the provisions are meant to apply and in fact found to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of a case, then there is no reason as to why the court will refuse to apply the same only because a wrong provision or no provision has been mentioned.

c. In the case of P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mentioning of the wrong provision or not mentioning that provision will not make the order invalid, if the court and/or statutory authority have the requisite jurisdiction.

d. In the case of Bharathi Cement Corporation (P.) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Writ Petn. No. 6260 of 2012 (A.P.), the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere non mention or mention of a wrong provision of law in a proceeding or order cannot be a ground to invalidate it if that is otherwise permissible and valid under law.

e. In the case of Mandlal Jaiswal & Co. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 540, the Hon'ble M.P. High Court held that reference to a wrong section or non- mention of ection will not make the addition invalid.

f. In the case of Shri Cherian Abraham Vs. DCIT, I.T.A. No. 575/Bang/2016, the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore held that Assessment Order does not become invalid for mere wrong mention or non-mention of section.

g. ITR 36 Madras HC CIT vs Madurai Knitting Co-doj: 13.02.1975 Quoting of wrong provision of law is immaterial.

h. In the case of Namdev Arora [2016] 72 taxmann.com 124 [Punjab & Haryana] it was held that the assessee has not been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever on account of the assessing officer having mentioned the wrong section. It was also held that where in the assessment proceedings the enquiries are made by the Assessing Officer of facts and the AO after considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the assessee's response, if any, thereto makes an addition, which is justified and permissible under the provisions of the Act but inadvertently or even wrongly mentions a wrong provision of the Act, the assessment order can not be set aside on that ground. It was also noted that it is open in such circumstances to the Appellate Authority or to CIT(A) or the Tribunal to uphold the addition under the correct section.

i.

In the case of Manoj Aggarwal (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Delhi) (SB), the Hon'ble Special Bench of Delhi ITAT on 25.07.2008 has held that wrong quoting of section is not fatal to the proceedings, and has preferred substance over form:

"26.

The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee before us was that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account and the deposits were found only in the assessee's bank statement which cannot be considered as the books of account of the assessee and, therefore, section 68 was not applicable. Our attention was drawn to the confirmation letters placed at pages 159 and 160 of the paper book. We are however unable to accept the argument. Though section. 68 of the Act may not be strictly applicable since the assessee was not maintaining any books of account and the bank statement cannot be considered as the assessee's books of account, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807, it is the onus of the assessee to explain the cash received by him and if there is no explanation or acceptable evidence to prove the nature and source of the receipt, the amount may be added as the assessee's income on general principles and it is not necessary to invoke section 68, nor is it necessary for the income-tax authorities to point out the source of the monies received. Even if section 68 is not applicable, the cash deposit in the bank can be asked to be explained by the assessee under section 69 or section 69B of the Act. No doubt the assessee had tried to file additional evidence before the CIT (Appeals) in the form of confirmation letters and income-tax returns but these were not admitted by the CIT (Appeals) and no reasons have been shown before us as to why they should have been admitted. In the absence of any clinching evidence to show the nature and source of the monies deposited into the bank account which belongs to the assessee, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as the assessee's unexplained income. We confirm the addition and dismiss the ground.” (emphasis supplied by us)