Case Law Details
Jaya Aggarwal Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The Assessing Officer noticed and had asked the appellant to explain source of deposit of Rs. 1,60,000/- in cash in her bank account on 13th January, 1998. The appellant had explained that she had withdrawn Rs. 2 lakhs in cash from her bank account on 2nd May, 1997 and cash deposit of Rs. 1,60,000/- was from the amount withdrawn. This withdrawal was to buy property for which earnest money in cash was to be paid. As the deal could not be finalized and Rs. 1.60.000/- was re-deposited in the bank. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation observing that withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/- was on 2nd May, 1997 but the deposit made was after more than 7 months on 13th January, 1998. No other reason or ground was elucidated and stated in the assessment order. Rs.1,60,000/-was treated as unexplained cash credit and addition was made under section 68 of the Act.
Held by CIT
Assessee preferred first appeal and had reiterated that the cash was withdrawn to buy immovable property i.e. basement located at 19A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, but as the deal did not materialize, Rs. 1,60,000/- was deposited in the bank on 13thJanuary, 1998. Additional evidence in a form of a certificate issued by M/s. S.G. Realtors was filed. However, the appeal was dismissed observing that the certificate given by M/s. S.G. Realtors was not conclusive proof that the cash deposited was out of the Rs. 2,00,000/-, withdrawn earlier. Onus to prove source of money deposited was on the appellant, which had not been discharged by showing nexus between the cash withdrawn and cash deposited.
Held by ITAT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
