Case Law Details
Manish Kumar Mukim Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made u/s 68 by treating the cash deposit in the bank account as unexplained income is justified in law?
ITAT states that the assessee has to prima facie prove the identity of the creditor/subscriber, the genuineness of the transaction, namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels, the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber. If relevant details of the address or PAN identity of the creditor/subscriber are furnished to the Department it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable Explanation. The Department would not be justified in drawing an adverse inference only because the creditor/subscriber fails or neglects to respond to its notices. The onus would not stand discharged if the creditor/subscriber denies or repudiates the transaction set up by the assessed nor should the AO take such repudiation at face value and construe it, without more, against the assessed. The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the repudiation.
In view of the above mentioned parameters, ITAT found that the appellant has not been able to discharge even the basic onus to prove the genuineness of cash credits in his bank accounts. Therefore, in their considered view when the existence of the source of such cash deposits is not proven then the A.0 is fully justified in treating such cash deposits as unexplained and liable to be taxed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
