For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- in his bank account. However, since the assessee has not filed any return of income, notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2017 which was duly served upon the assessee. However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and even no return of income has been filed pursuance to issuance of income u/s 148 of the Act, the AO proceeded u/s 144 and completed the assessment treating the whole of the cash deposits of Rs. 9,00,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee and assessment was accordingly completed u/s 147 read with 144 of the Act. Assesseesubmitted that the cash deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 02.03.2010 was out of cash withdrawal made by the assessee earlier during the year on 16.04.2009 and 08.06.2009. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the fact that the cash of Rs. 15,20,000/- was withdrawn on 16.04.2009. However, since the cash was subsequently deposited on 02.03.2010, the explanation of the assessee that he has kept the cash with him for as long as 10 months was not found acceptable and addition so made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. Against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. Further, the assessee has explained that withdrawal of Rs. 15.2 lacs was made out of maturity of fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 14.67 lacs which was credited in his bank account on 16.04.2009 and opening balance of Rs. 91,667 in his bank account. The assessee has further explained that fixed deposit was made out of compensation amount of Rs. 16,14,382/- received from RIICO, Bhiwadi (Alwar) being 5/8 share in the ancestral agricultural land which was acquired by RIICO in the preceding financial year i.e. 2008-09. These are undisputed facts which are emerging from records and we therefore, find that the assessee has reasonably explained the source of cash deposit in his bank account which is the amount of compensation received on sale of his agricultural land. Where the compensation on sale of agriculture land is not disputed, the amount deposited out of such compensation cannot be disputed. The assessee has further explained that it has deposited the amount finally with RHB. Therefore, where the source and even subsequent deposit is clearly established in the instantcase, merely on account of fact that there was certain time gap between withdrawal and deposit cannot be held against the assessee and thus, we do not see any justifiable basis for holding that the amount so deposited remain unexplained. In the result, the addition so made by the Assessing officer is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Cash Credit—As The assessee has deposited cash in his bank account and the assessee has not filed any return of income, notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2017 which was duly served upon the assessee. However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and even no return of income has been filed pursuance to issuance of income u/s 148 of the Act, the AO proceeded u/s 144 and completed the assessment treating the whole of the cash deposits unexplained income of the assessee and assessment was accordingly completed u/s 147 read with 144 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The explanation of the assesseethat he has kept the cash with him for as long as 10 months
was not found acceptable and addition so made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. Against the said findings, the assessee was in appeal before tribunal.
Tribunal found that the assessee has reasonably explained the source of cash deposit in his bank account which is the amount of compensation received on sale of his agricultural land. Where the compensation on sale of agriculture land is not disputed, the amount deposited out of such compensation cannot be disputed. The assessee has further explained that it has deposited the amount finally with RHB. Therefore, where the source and even subsequent deposit is clearly established in the instant case, merely on account of fact that there was certain time gap between withdrawal and deposit cannot be held against the assessee and thus, tribunal do not see any justifiable basis for holding that the amount so deposited remain unexplained. Therefore the addition so made by the Assessing officer was deleted and the ground of appeal was allowed. Appeal of the assessee was allowed. --- PAWAN KUMAR vs ITO.[2020] 23 ITCD Online 60 (JP)