Full News
Revenue right in making addition on account of unexplained source of deposit.
Revenue right in making addition on account of unexplained source of deposit.
Monetary transaction of any volume and kind should always be supported by genuine documentary evidence. Lack of documentary evidence could lead to addition being made in your income and thus lead to greater taxes. In the present case, Assessee could not produce any documentary evidence relating to any monetary transaction and as a result, AO made addition to his income also his appeals before CIT(A) and ITAT were dismissed.-501520
Facts in brief:
1. Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant as unexplained.
2. On appeal CIT (A) confirmed it.
3. CIT(A) held, interest paid of Rs. 1,08,210/- on the OD account cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 57(111) of the Income Tax Act.
4. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. On appeal ITAT held,
5. I find that the AO was justified in not accepting the submission of the appellant in this.regard as the same is not supported by any evidence. The explanation of the appellant about Rs.5 lakh in cash received from Mr. Kunal Laungani and Mr. Lalit Laungani cmJ20.02.20lO as advance for sale of his house property located at 122/6, Faizabad Road, Lucknow is also not supported by any evidence except a confirmation letter filed by them.
6. Both of them are apparently working for a company, M/s. Gola Southend Restaurant and availability of cash with them is not verifiable. Admittedly, both of them are nephew of the appellant and confirmations from them have been apparently obtained only to explain the cash deposit. I also agree-with the AO that in past such payment was received from Ashok Kumar Agarwal by cheque and the appellant entered into a proper agreement to sale on stamp paper.
7. I also find that there is not much of difference in the peak credits as on 17.02.2010 and 23.03.2010 which stand at Rs.30,26,843/- and Rs. 3 0,95,8437- respectively. Loan of Rs.5 lakh has been obtained from Laungani brothers on 20.02.2010 which certainly cannot explain the peak credit of Rs.30,26,843/- as on 17.02.2010. Under the circumstances addition of Rs,28,99,743/- made by-the AO is confirmed. Ground nos. 6, 6(a) and 7 are decided against the appellant.
8. Since no evidence has been filed by the assessee to demolish the stand taken by the Revenue with regard to unexplained source of deposits, we are of the view that the Revenue has rightly made the addition on account of unexplained source of deposit in the Bank. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
