Case Law Details
Sneha Nerli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
We are of the opinion that assessee has to prove with evidences that sufficient cash was available to deposit to her bank account. In the present case, assessee claimed that she has been working in Dubai and that the cash deposit in India were on account of amounts earned in Dubai and brought to India. Assessee filed salary certificate for the period of 2013-14. The salary credited into bank account is also witnessed. Subsequently, for the period 2017 to 2020 the assessee has not been able to produce any salary certificates or proof of credits during the year 2015 or 2016. Assessee asked to produce any custom receipt for having brought cash into India. The assessee expressed inability to produce any custom receipt or having brought cash into India. The salary of the assessee from working in Dubai during the year 2013-14 at 5600 Dirhams p.m. The total Dirhams are 60000 converted into Indian currency itself works out to around Rs.10.5 lakhs p.a. The assessee also have personal expenditure in Dubai. The assessee’s explanation before lower authorities that cash deposited into Indian bank account is from her salary earning from Dubai but assessee was not able to submit any proof of amounts transferred to Indian account and any cash withdrawn from the Indian account. Being so, we are not in a position to uphold the grounds raised by assessee to come to a conclusion that the deposit into account during demonetization period is from the known sources. Accordingly, we confirm the addition made by the lower authorities.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 10.2.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee raised ground with regard to the deposit of Rs.10.10 lakhs to the bank account during the demonetization time.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
