Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Upholds Partial Addition for Unexplained Cash Deposits Lacking Source Proof

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 2750
Case Name
Balineni Kishore Babu Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2017-18
Advertisement

Balineni Kishore Babu Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad, addressed an appeal filed by Shri Balineni Kishore Babu against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had largely sustained the Assessing Officer’s (AO) addition of ₹5.38 lakh to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash deposits for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The case originated from the scrutiny of high-value cash deposits made by the assessee during the financial year 2016-17, following the filing of his income tax return. The AO had issued notices seeking details of bank accounts, credits, and the sources of these cash deposits. In response, the assessee, a Chartered Accountant working as a General Manager and also practicing part-time consultancy, explained that a significant portion of the total deposits of ₹14.80 lakh came from cash withdrawals and demonetization-period savings. However, for the remaining ₹5.38 lakh, the assessee claimed it was received from two individuals as agricultural income and as client payments for self-assessment tax, but failed to provide supporting evidence. Consequently, the AO treated this ₹5.38 lakh as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, leading to the appeal before the ITAT.

During the ITAT proceedings, the assessee managed to provide some explanation and demonstrate the source for a portion of the disputed amount. The assessee showed that ₹2.96 lakh was available from his mother and ₹94,000 was received as cash for advance tax deposits from a client, totaling ₹3.92 lakh. Regarding the remaining amount received from his uncle, Shri Ravipudi Krishna Murthy, the assessee sought to explain the availability of ₹1.48 lakh. The ITAT, taking an equitable view, acknowledged the explanation for ₹1.00 lakh received from the uncle but found the assessee failed to adequately demonstrate the source for the remaining ₹48,000 from this transaction. As a result, the ITAT partly allowed the assessee’s appeal, sustaining the addition of ₹48,000 as unexplained cash deposit while deleting the remaining portion of the initial addition of ₹5.38 lakh.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,091

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.