Vinita Nitin Chaudhary Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
No Section 69A Addition Merely Due to Time Gap Between Cash Withdrawal and Redeposit; Salaried Employee Not Required to Maintain Cash Book for Explaining Cash Deposits; ITAT Quashes Unexplained Cash Addition as Revenue Failed to Prove Alternate Use of Withdrawals.
Summary: In Vinita Nitin Chaudhary Vs ITO, the Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of ₹12.08 lakh made under Section 69A for cash deposits during the demonetization period, holding that the deposits were sufficiently explained through earlier withdrawals from the assessee’s own bank account. The assessee, a salaried government scientist, had withdrawn substantial cash before demonetization and later redeposited part of it. The Assessing Officer treated the deposits as unexplained money due to alleged non-compliance and absence of detailed records, while the CIT(A) upheld the addition citing time gaps between withdrawals and redeposits and absence of a cash book. The Tribunal held that there is no legal requirement for a salaried individual to maintain a cash book and that mere time gaps cannot justify additions unless the Revenue proves the cash was used elsewhere. Since withdrawals exceeded deposits and the source was identifiable, the addition was deleted.
Core Issue: The Delhi ITAT dealt with the issue whether cash deposits made during demonetization could be treated as unexplained money under section 69A merely because there existed a time gap between earlier cash withdrawals and subsequent redeposit.
