ITAT Deletes ₹12.66 Lakh Section 69A Cash Deposit Addition

Rajpal Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra)

Affidavits Left Unverified, Addition Deleted: ITAT Grants Relief to Agriculturist

₹12.66 Lakh Cash Deposit Addition Deleted

The Agra ITAT deleted a ₹12,66,000 addition sustained as unexplained cash deposits, accepting an agriculturist’s explanation based on opening cash savings, agricultural income and loans from seven identified persons.

The Tribunal found the claimed opening cash and agricultural income acceptable in the circumstances of the case. As regards the loans, it noted that the lenders’ affidavits were already on record, but the Assessing Officer had conducted no enquiry during remand proceedings to verify their statements.

The ruling grants relief on merits. The Tribunal did not send the disputed deposits back for another verification exercise.

Reopening Followed Large Bank Deposits

The assessee’s assessment was reopened through a notice under Section 148 dated 31 March 2018, based on information that he had deposited ₹46,51,000 in his bank account.

According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee neither appeared during assessment nor furnished an explanation for the deposits. The officer therefore completed the assessment ex parte, adding the entire cash deposits and ₹15,190 of bank interest, aggregating to ₹46,66,190.

Before the appellate authorities, the assessee described himself as an aged and unlettered agriculturist whose livelihood came from agriculture. He furnished documents explaining the deposits, including a registered agricultural land sale deed, bank passbooks, a date-wise cash flow statement and notarised affidavits from lenders.

CIT(A) Accepted Most of the Deposit Sources

The CIT(A) accepted the explanation for ₹33,85,000 of the deposits.

This comprised ₹25 lakh received in cash from the sale of agricultural land, ₹7.50 lakh redeposited out of earlier bank withdrawals, and ₹1.35 lakh withdrawn from a Kisan Credit Card loan.

The registered sale deed dated 23 September 2010 supported the land-sale proceeds. The Indian Overseas Bank passbook showed the KCC credit and corresponding cash withdrawal. The State Bank of India passbook supported the earlier withdrawals and redeposits.

However, the CIT(A) sustained the remaining ₹12,66,000 under Section 69A, finding the explanation for that portion insufficient.

Remaining Deposits Explained Through Savings, Agriculture and Loans

The assessee reconciled the disputed balance through opening cash of ₹2,25,000, agricultural income of ₹3,40,000, and unsecured loans of ₹7,10,000 from seven persons.

Together, these sources amounted to ₹12,75,000. After deducting closing cash of ₹9,000, the amount available for the disputed deposits was ₹12,66,000.

The CIT(A) rejected the opening cash and agricultural income for want of documentary support. Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied on the cash flow statement and Khatauni records showing agricultural holdings of 0.4950 hectare in his name and 0.3803 hectare in his wife’s name.

The Tribunal accepted the opening cash balance having regard to the assessee’s circumstances, including the accepted receipt of ₹25 lakh from the sale of agricultural land. It also accepted the agricultural income claim, considering those circumstances and the landholdings placed before it.

Lenders’ Affidavits Could Not Be Rejected on Suspicion Alone

The seven loans ranged from ₹90,000 to ₹1,10,000 each. The affidavits identified the lenders and described their income sources as agriculture, dairy activities or sale of cattle.

The CIT(A) questioned the affidavits because they had been executed on 10 October 2018, several years after the transactions. It also doubted the lenders’ capacity, noting their stated annual incomes below ₹2 lakh and the absence of supporting landholding or banking records.

The assessee argued that modest rural incomes did not necessarily exclude accumulated savings and that the affidavits should have been verified rather than rejected through assumptions.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)’s conclusions raised doubts and suspicions about the affidavit contents, but the Assessing Officer had made no enquiry during remand proceedings to verify the seven lenders’ statements.

Since the affidavits were already available on record and remained unexamined, the Tribunal held that the ₹7,10,000 loan-related addition could not be sustained.

Merits Decided; Other Grounds Left Open

The Tribunal deleted the entire ₹12,66,000 disputed cash deposit addition and allowed Ground No. 2.

Following that relief, the other grounds became academic and were left open. Consequently, the order does not decide the challenge to the validity of reopening or independently adjudicate every legal proposition advanced in the assessee’s written submissions.

The separate bank-interest amount was not part of the ₹12.66 lakh deletion expressly directed by the Tribunal.

Author’s Comments

The decision demonstrates the importance of considering an explanation in its factual setting, particularly where rural savings, agricultural receipts and informal borrowings are involved.

Its strongest feature is the treatment of the lender affidavits. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had an opportunity during remand to verify specific statements but did not do so. Unverified doubts were insufficient to sustain the loan-related addition on these facts.

The ruling should not be read as making every affidavit conclusive or dispensing with evidence of financial capacity. Its application will depend on the particulars furnished, the surrounding circumstances and the enquiries actually undertaken.

Equally, the acceptance of opening cash and agricultural income was fact-specific. For practical purposes, a chronological cash flow supported by land records, bank entries and identifiable lenders remains valuable.

Here, that explanation secured deletion on merits, rather than another round of proceedings.

Cases Discussed

• Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v. ITO, (2015) 68 SOT 197 (ITAT Delhi) — relied upon in the assessee’s written submissions on reopening based merely on cash-deposit information.
• CIT v. Kulwant Rai, (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) — relied upon concerning availability of earlier cash withdrawals and cash-flow evidence.
• Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) — relied upon concerning unrebutted affidavits where deponents were not cross-examined and no independent enquiry was made.
• CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) — relied upon regarding the evidentiary burden after particulars of creditors are furnished.
• Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT, (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) — relied upon for the proposition concerning proof of the source of the source.
• CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi, (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) — relied upon concerning the character of a bank passbook for Section 68 purposes.
• CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) — relied upon concerning discretion in applying the deeming provisions of Sections 69/69A.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed in appeal No CIT(Appeal)-2, Agra/10013/2019-20 by the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner of Income Tax), u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2011-12, wherein the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case: The case was reopened vide a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018 on the basis of information that assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 46,51,000/- in his bank account. The assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act as according to the AO the assessee did not appear during assessment proceedings and no explanation was filed regarding, the source of the above cash deposited. Accordingly, the AO added a sum of Rs. 46,66,190/- which included a sum of Rs. 46,51,000/- being the cash deposited in the bank account and a sum of Rs. 15,190/- being interest earned there upon.

3. Aggrieved with the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) accepted the claim of the assessee that out of the above cash deposits an amount of Rs. 25,00,000 + 7,50,000 +1,35,000 was out of sale consideration of land received in cash, deposit out of earlier cash withdrawals and KCC loan. The Ld. CIT (A) however did not accept the balance source of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 12,66,000/- which was claimed on account of cash loan received from 7 persons amounting to Rs. 7,10,000/- as per the details on page no. 25 of the appellate order (and also reproduced in the relevant extracts of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as below) and further an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- out of opening cash balance as on 01.04.2010 and further an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- claimed to be agricultural income. In this regard, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are reproduced as under:

“7.6 The appellant has furnished a copy of the sale deed dated 23.09.2010 in support of the claim of receipt of Rs. 25,00,000/- sale consideration in cash which was deposited in bank account. The copy of the said sale deed was forwarded to the AO during remand proceedings for verification. However, the AO has mentioned that the appellant has not submitted copy of the sale deed during remand proceedings. The appellant in rejoinder has mentioned that the copy of the said sale deed was given to the AO during remand proceedings. The copy of the sale deed dated 23.09.2010 was forwarded to the AO from this office and therefore even if the appellant has not submitted the same during remand proceedings the AO could very well have examined the sale deed forwarded and available on records. From the contents of the sale deed dated 23.09.2010 it is clear that the appellant has sold agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- and has received the said consideration in cash. Thus, the source of the cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 25,00,000/- is seen to be out of explained sources.

7.6.1 The appellant has claimed that part of the cash deposits was from the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan of Rs. 1,35,000/- taken and has furnished a copy of bank pass book of Indian Overseas Bank in support of the same. From the perusal of the copy of the bank pass book it is seen that the appellant account in Indian Overseas Bank was credited with a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- on 06.07.2010 with remark ‘kcc/cdcc 225’ and the said sum was withdrawn in cash on same day. In view of above the claim made by the appellant that the source of part of the cash deposits of Rs. 1,35,000/- is found to be reasonable and acceptable.

7.6.2 The appellant has also claimed part of the source of cash deposits to be from the cash withdrawals made earlier and redeposited. The appellant in the cash flow furnished has claimed that cash of Rs. 7,50,000/- was withdrawn on various dates from the same bank account and the same was redeposited. From the examination of the copy of the pass book of State Bank of India furnished it is seen that cash has indeed been withdrawn to an extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- and it is out of the earlier deposit made of Rs. 25,00,000/-. In view of above, the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the SBI bank account is considered to be from the earlier cash withdrawals.

7.6.3 The appellant has further claimed that it has an opening cash balance of Rs. 2,25,000/- and has derived agricultural income of Rs. 3,40,000/- during the year. The appellant has however not furnished any documentary evidences in support of both the above claims made during appellate proceedings. Even during remand proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any evidence of having opening cash balance and documentary proof of deriving agricultural income. It will be pertinent to mention that the appellant has failed to furnish any documentary evidences for claims made for opening cash balance and agricultural income along even with the rejoinder. Therefore, the claims made by the appellant of having opening cash balance of Rs. 2,25,000/- and having derived agricultural income of Rs. 3,40,000/- are found to be untenable.

7.6.4 The appellant has also claimed that part of the source of the cash deposit is out of loan/borrowings made from various friends and relatives to the extent of Rs. 7,10,000/-. In support of the above claim made the appellant has furnished copies of affidavits made by these friends/relatives. From the contents of the affidavits, it is seen that all these have been made on 10/10/2018 in respect of loans given nearly 8 years earlier i.e. during the FY 2010-11. It is further seen that the all these friends/relatives are basically farmers or doing odd businesses. The details of these friends/relatives are tabulated below for clarity:

7.6.5 From the contents mentioned in the above table it can be seen that even some women friends/relatives have been shown to be farmers and none of the above friends/relatives have mentioned the extent of their agricultural land holdings or have given any proof of holding of agricultural land. Further, from the contents mentioned in the affidavit it transpires that they would not have any earlier savings as their annual income is below Rs. 2,00,000/-. The appellant has not furnished any copies of bank accounts maintained by these friends/relatives in order to establish their creditworthiness. In view of above the genuineness of the transaction of having given loans as well as creditworthiness of these friends/relatives have not been proven by the appellant.

7.6.6 The appellant in rejoinder has mentioned that the AO could have verified creditworthiness of these friends/relatives by sending notice u/s 133(6) of the Act or doing verification through Verification Unit. The above statement made by the appellant is seen to be preposterous as the initial onus is on the appellant to establish with documentary evidence the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the friends/relatives. Merely furnishing of an affidavit made nearly 8 years from the date of alleged loan transactions without giving any documentary evidence in support of content mention in the affidavit does not in anyway discharge the initial onus cast on the appellant. Only once the initial onus cast on the appellant is discharged then the AO may make further enquiries as required. The appellant in this case has not been able to establish with documentary evidence the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the friends/relatives and therefore the claim made that part of the cash deposits is out of loans/borrowing of Rs. 7,10,000/- from friends/relatives is found to be untenable.

7.6.7 In view of the foregoing discussion made out of the cash deposits of Rs. 46,51,000/- by the appellant in the bank account the sources of cash deposits of Rs. 33,85,000/- (25,00,000 + 7,50,000 + 1,35,000) being out of sale consideration received, cash withdrawals and KCC loan are found to be from explained sources. For the balance amount of cash deposits of Rs. 12,66,000/- (46,51,000 less 33,85,000) the appellant has not been able to explain the sources satisfactorily and therefore the addition made by the AO to this extent as unexplained income/ money u/s 69A of the Act is sustained. The appellant gets a relief of Rs. 33,85,000/- and the ground is treated to be partly allowed.”

4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee has filed an appeal before us on the following grounds of appeals:

“Grounds of Appeal

1. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in in sustaining the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contends that the appreciating was based on mere reason to suspect rather than reason to believe and the statutory requirements for assuming jurisdiction were not met.

2. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 12,66,000/- as unexplained cash deposits ignoring the availability of cash amounting to Rs. 2,25,000 at the beginning of the year, Agriculture income of the year amounting to Rs. 3,40,000 and unsecured loans from identified persons during the year.

3. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred in law and on facts genuineness and creditworthiness of the depositors has been doubted without their cross examination and summarily rejecting the evidence filed.

4. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in law by summarily disregarding the notarized affidavits on the sole ground that they were furnished 8 years after the transaction. The CIT(A) failed to apply the settled law that the contents of an affidavit must be accepted as true if the Revenue chooses not to cross examine the deponent or conduct an independent inquiry to disprove the contents.

5. Because the findings regarding the “lack of creditworthiness” are perverse and based on subjective surmises. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that lenders with annual incomes below Rs. 2,00,000/- could not have past savings to advance loans, thereby ignoring the economic reality of rural agricultural households where cash savings are accumulated over years.

6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of the hearing.”

5. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR filed a written submission which is reproduced as under:

“Synosis

1. The appellant is an aged and unlettered agriculturist of Village Atous, Tehsil Kirawali, District Agra, whose sole vocation and sole source of livelihood is agriculture. On the strength of AIR information relating to cash deposits of Rs. 46,51,000/- in his savings bank account with the State Bank of India during F.Y. 2010-11, the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (‘the Act”). The appellant, unaware of the proceedings, remained unrepresented, and the learned AO completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 10.12.2018, adding the entire deposits of Rs. 46,51,000/- together with savings bank interest of Rs. 15,190/- as undisclosed income, aggregating Rs. 46,66,190/-.

2. In first appeal, the appellant placed on record the registered sale deed dated 23.09.2010 of his agricultural land (consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- received in cash), the Indian Overseas Bank passbook evidencing the KCC loan of Rs. 1,35,000/-, the SBI passbook, notarised affidavits of seven lenders, and a date-wise cash flow statement. All these documents were forwarded to the learned AO, who furnished remand reports dated 27.10.2023 and 24.06.2024, and the appellant filed a detailed rejoinder. (PB Page No. 30-40)

3. By the impugned order dated 11.03.2026, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, accepted the source of deposits to the extent of Rs. 33,85,000/-, comprising the sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/-, redeposit of earlier withdrawals of Rs. 7,50,000/- and the KCC loan of Rs. 1,35,000/-, but sustained the balance addition of Rs. 12,66,000/- under section 69A, and separately confirmed the interest addition of Rs. 15,190/-.

The position emerging from the impugned order is tabulated below:

4. What survives for adjudication is a solitary question. Whether the deposits of Rs. 12,66,000/- made on 26.11.2010 and 27.11.2010 stand explained? The appellant’s explanation, consistent from the very first submission before the CIT(A) and fortified by documents verified in remand, is as under:

5. The assessment was reopened solely upon AIR information of cash deposits, without any independent application of mind as to how the deposits constituted income which had escaped assessment. It is settled that a cash deposit, per se, is not income; the reasons must disclose a live nexus between the material and the belief of escapement. Reliance is placed on Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v. ITO, (2015) 68 SOT 197 (ITAT Delhi), wherein reopening founded merely on information of cash deposits was quashed as proceeding upon reason to suspect and not reason to believe.

6. The relief of Rs. 7,50,000/- on account of redeposit of earlier withdrawals was granted by the learned CIT(A) on the strength of the very same date-wise cash flow statement furnished by the appellant. Having tested that statement against the bank passbook and found it truthful, the learned CIT(A) could not, without pointing out a single infirmity or negative balance therein, discard the remaining entries of the self-same statement. A cash flow statement is an integrated whole; it cannot be dissected to the prejudice of the assessee once its veracity stands established. The daily balance column demonstrates that cash availability never fell into the negative on any date, including 26.11.2010, when the available cash stood at Rs. 16,10,500/- against the deposit of Rs. 16,00,000/-.

7. It is trite that where deposits are duly correlated with a chronological cash flow, no addition survives: CIT v. Kulwant Rai, (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del.).

8. The learned CIT(A) rejected the opening cash of Rs. 2,25,000/- and agricultural income of Rs. 3,40,000/- solely for want of documentary support. The appellant has now placed on record the Khatauni evidencing agricultural holdings of 0.4950 hectare in his own name and 0.3803 hectare in the name of his wife (PB Page No. 41-46). This document goes to the very root of the matter, could not be produced earlier owing to the appellant’s illiteracy and rustic circumstance, and being a government record requiring no further proof, deserves admission under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in the interest of substantial justice.

9. Once the holding is established, agricultural income of a modest order and accumulated household savings of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the hands of a lifelong cultivator are matters of ordinary human probability. For an agriculturist whose entire income is exempt and who is under no obligation to maintain books of account, the demand for vouchers of agricultural produce sold in the village mandi years earlier is a demand for the impossible. The test remains preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

10. The appellant furnished notarised affidavits of all seven lenders, each disclosing complete identity, parentage, village and post office, the amount advanced, and the source of the lender’s own income.

11. The law declared in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) concludes the issue, where the deponents are neither cross-examined nor is any independent enquiry made to displace their statements, the contents of the affidavits must be accepted as true. Neither the learned AO in two rounds of remand nor the learned CIT(A) summoned a single deponent, issued a single notice under section 133(6). or caused any verification through the Verification Unit. The affidavits therefore stand uncontroverted on the record.

12. The adverse inference drawn from the affidavits having been sworn on 10.10.2018. Private agricultural loans amongst villagers are never contemporaneously documented; the occasion to obtain affidavits arose only when the reassessment proceedings of 2018 came to the appellant’s knowledge. The affidavits are, in truth, contemporaneous with the proceedings in which they were required, and their timing is a circumstance of natural conduct, not of contrivance.

13. Upon identity and genuineness being established, the onus shifted to the Department, CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). The appellant cannot be called upon to prove the source of the source, Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT, (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.).

14. The learned CIT(A) reasoned that lenders whose annual income is below Rs. 2,00,000/- ‘would not have any earlier savings’. The finding is a surmise substituted for evidence. It ignores the economic reality of rural agricultural households, negligible cash expenses, self-grown foodgrain, joint family living, and the time-honoured practice of holding savings in cash, and it ignores that each individual loan is a modest sum of Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 1,10,000/-, entirely proportionate to the declared incomes. The further observation that ‘even some women friends/relatives have been shown to be farmers’ is an assumption unknown to law and contrary to the lived reality of the countryside, where women are cultivators in their own right and hold land in their own names, as indeed the appellant’s own wife does.

15. The learned AO made a bald addition of ‘undisclosed income’ without invoking any charging provision; Further, the learned CIT(A) has not stated any such section. The section 68 of the Act applies where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The section 69A of the Act applies where the assessee is ‘found to be the owner of money’ not recorded in the books of account. A bank passbook has been held as not being the assessee’s books of account: CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi, (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.). The word ‘may’ in sections 69/69A confers a judicial discretion. In CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that even where the explanation is not accepted, the deeming need not be applied where the circumstances of the assessee. The appellant here is an aged, illiterate cultivator with no source of income other than exempt agricultural income; the circumstances of the case cry out for the same equitable discretion.”

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case the assessment was reopened on account of cash deposits of Rs. 46,51,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. In the appellate proceedings, out of the above amount the Ld. CIT (A) accepted the source of cash deposits to the extent to Rs. 33,85,000/. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the balance cash deposits of Rs. 12,66,000/- (out of Rs. 16,00,000/- deposited on 26.11.2010 and Rs. 1,500/- deposited on 27.11.2010). We also notice that the assessee submits that out of Rs. 16,00,000/- deposited on 26.11.2010, the Ld. CIT (A) accepted the explanation regarding the amount of Rs. 3,35,500/- but did not accept the balance sum of Rs. 12,64,500/-. In this regard, the assessee has filed a tabular chart explaining the source of Rs. 12,66,000/- which is reproduced as under:

6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation regarding the opening cash balance of Rs. 2,25,000/- on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the above opening balance. However, considering the fact regarding the acceptance of cash receipts of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of sale of agricultural land during the year, the status of the assessee to have an opening cash balance of Rs. 2,25,000/- on 01.04.2010 is found to be acceptable. Regarding, the claim of agricultural income of Rs. 3,40,000/- as claimed by the assessee, for the same reasons and the fact of land holdings as submitted by the assessee in the above table, the same is also acceptable. Further, regarding the balance amount of cash loan of Rs. 7,10,000/- from 7 different persons as per the details on page 25 of the appellate order, (and also reproduced in the relevant extracts of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as earlier in this order) we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has made certain observations raising doubts/suspicions about the contents in the affidavits filed by the said 7 persons. However, no enquiry was made by the AO during the remand proceedings to verify the statements made by the 7 persons in the above 7 affidavits. The matter relates to A.Y. 2010-11 and the affidavits are dated 10.10.2018. Considering the fact that the 7 affidavits were already on record which was not enquired by the AO during the remand proceedings, (wherein the remand report was submitted by the AO vide letter dated 27.10.2023), the addition of Rs. 7,10,000/- on this account cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 12,66,000/- sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is deleted. Ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. In view of Ground no. 2 of the appeal being allowed, the other grounds of appeal become academic and are left open in this case.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 28.09.2026