AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073655351(1) dated 24.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties regar ding correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ actio n treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.60,10,000/-in the relevant financial year 2015-16 as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act, in assessment order dated 16.01.202 4 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion reading as under:
“5.I have care fully examine d the facts of the case and peruse d the grounds of appeal . Ground 1 to 6 o f the present appeal simply pe rtains to the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.60,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplaine d money and the same is adjudicated as under .
5.1.Now in the pr oceedings befo re me and afte r thoroughly reviewing all the subm issions made by the appe llant. I have carefully considered the submiss ions made by the appellant and the materials available on record. The primary issue under consideratio n is the addition o f Rs.60,10,000/- made by the AO unde r Se ction 69A of the Act o n account of une xplained money. The appe llant has co ntended that the source of the cash deposits was the amount received from his father, who, in turn, had received compensation o f Rs.1,90,78,000/- from a Government Authority fo r land acquisitio n. The appe llant fur ther claimed that his father withdrew Rs.72,00,000/-from his bank account on 11/05/2015 and subsequently handed o ver the same to the appellant, purpo rtedly for the purpose o f purchasing property. However , as the alleged prope rty tr ansaction did no t mate rialize, the appellant claims to have re-deposited the sum in his bank account in multiple tranches over a pe riod o f time. The details o f cash deposits made by the appellant is as under:-
S. No. Date Amount Withdrawal (Rs.) Amount Cash Deposited (Rs.) Remarks 1 07/05/2015 - 3,000.00 Cash deposited out of accumulated savings 2 13/05/2015 - 10,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 3 14/05/2015 - 10,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 4 29/05/2015 20,00,000.00 - Cash withdrawn from earlier deposited to his SB Account 5 03/06/2015 - 20,00,000.00 Cash re-deposited out of cash withdrawal on 29/05/2015 6 11/06/2015 - 3,000.00 Cash deposited out of accumulated savings 7 8 07/08/2015 19/08/2015 -- 3,00,000.00 Out 10,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 9 03/09/2015 - 7,00,000.00 Out of amount of Rs. 72,00,000.00 received from his father on 11/05/2015 5.2.Upon careful co nsideratio n of the facts, e vi dence, and arguments presented, the appe llant has put fo rth the explanation that the source of the cash deposit amounting to Rs.60,10,000/- was a sum receive d from his father , who had allegedly received Rs.1,90,78,000/- as land compensation fro m a Government Authority. Howe ve r, this claim remains wholly unsubstantiated due to the co mplete lack of documentary evidence. The appellant has failed to provide any supporting documents such as go vernment payment records , or any other conc lusive proof demonstrating that his father actually rece ive d the alleged land compensatio n. In the absence of such corro borative evide nce, the very foundation of the appe llant's explanation is rendered questio nable. Furthermore , even if it we re to be assumed, merely fo r argument's sake and without admission, that the appellant's father had indeed receive d the said land compensation, the appe llant has not demonstrate d any credible flow o f funds from his father to himself. Mere oral asse rtions, unaccompanied by documentary proo f, do no t ho ld any evidentiary value . Moreover, give n the substantial amount involved, it would be expected that if the money w as indee d transferre d by the appe llant's father, a fo rmal gift deed or at least a confirmation lette r woul d have been execute d. However , the appe llant has failed to provide any such supporting document that co uld substantiate his claim. This glaring omission raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the appellant's versio n of events. Further, the appe llant has also no t disclosed any details regarding whe ther the interest component on the alleged land compensatio n receive d by his father was duly offered to tax. In cases of land acquisition compensation, a significant portio n often comprises interest, which is taxable under the pro visions of the Act. Ho wever, the appellant has not submitte d any records to demonstr ate that such inte rest incom e was accounted for in his father’s tax returns. This further weakens the appellant's case and casts doubt on the authenticity of the overall transaction.
Another notable inconsiste ncy in the appellant’s explanation is the manner in which the depo sits were made. Inste ad of re-de positing the entire sum in one instance , as would be e xpected if the amount was truly meant fo r purchasing pro perty and was late r returned, the appe llant has made multiple staggered deposits over an extended pe riod. This fr agmente d pattern of de posits is not in alignment with his state d claim, as a genuine pro perty transactio n would have like ly resulted in a single or at most a few consolidated deposits. The lack o f a logical sequence in the deposit pattern adds to the suspicion surro unding the appellant's claims. Additio nally, the appe llant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish the existence of an intende d pro perty purchase . No sale agreement, Memorandum of Unde rstanding, or correspo ndence with any party regarding a potential transaction has been submitted. In the absence of such critical documentation, the assertion that the money was meant for a prope rty transaction appe ars to be an after thought rather than a bona fide explanation. Under the pro visions of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, the onus is entire ly upon the appe llant to satisfactorily e xplai n the nature and so urce o f cash deposits in his bank account . In the present case, the appe llant has utte rly failed to do so. His explanation is base d solely o n unverified assertions, without any corrobo rating evidence. The lack of substantiation str ongly suggests that the explanation is nothing more than a fabricated sto ry, constr ucte d with the intention of evading tax liability on unexplained cas h deposits. There fore , given the inconsistencies, contr adictions, and complete absence of docume ntary proof, the explanation o ffe red by the appellant cannot be accepte d. In view of the fore going discussion, the additio n of Rs.60,10,000/- made by the AO under Section 69A of the Act is found to be justified and is accordingly confirmed. Accordingly, all the ground raised by the appellant stands dismisse d.
6.In the result the appeal is Dismissed.”
This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed his instant appeal before the tribunal.
Both the learne d representatives vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. The assessee has further filed his detailed paper book running into 96 pages comprising all the relevant case records. A perusal thereof indicates that the assessee is a son of Sh. Bhim Singh and Smt. Kripa De vi. And that his father who has left for his he avenly abode on 01.11.2022. He appears to have sold/transferred his agricultural land(s) to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (“N OIDA”) for Rs.1,00,45,200/- vide registere d deed executed in March 2015 i.e. on 26.03.2015. The assessee has further filed his bank state ment as well indicating the impugned cash deposits post facto the abo ve sale deed. His case therefore before both the learned lower authorities has been that Sh. Bhim Singh had first withdraw n cash w hich stood re-de posited in his account forming subject matter of the impugned addition.
The Revenue could hardly dispute that go ing by family traditions, possibility of a father’s cash withdrawals to be depo sited in his son’s bank acco unt(s) could not be all together ruled out as well. The fact however remains that the assessee has not discharged his onus to this effect to the entire satisfaction of both the le arned lower authorities. We accor dingly are of the considered view that a lump sum addition of Rs.10,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a prece dent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.50,10,000/- regarding the impugned addition in other words. Necessar y computation shall follow as per law.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.