Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 3204
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Shri Vikas Awasthy, J, Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, ACJ
VISHWAS KOHLI NEW DELHI – Appellant
Versus
ITO WARD- 59(5) NEW DELHI – Respondent
ITA No.7259/Del/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Shri Manpreet Singh Kapoor, CA, Rajender Singh Rathor, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
The burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of cash transactions and the creditworthiness of the creditor, failing which additions under Section 68 are justified.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 68 - Addition of Rs. 69,20,000 made under Section 68 due to failure of the assessee to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of cash transactions. The Assessing Officer found no documentary evidence to support the source of cash deposits, which were claimed to be from a sale of property. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, observing that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof. (Paras 8, 11, 12, 15)
(B) Burden of Proof - The onus lies on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Affidavits submitted by the assessee were considered self-serving in the absence of corroborative evidence. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 69,20,000 made by the Assessing Officer, who questioned cash deposits of Rs. 81,77,000 in three bank accounts, primarily sourced from an alleged advance against property sale. The creditor could not provide documentary proof of the source of funds.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of the CIT(A), confirming the addition under Section 68 due to lack of evidence supporting the cash transactions. The agreement of sale was on plain paper and lacked legal sanctity.
Issues: The main issues included the genuineness of the cash deposits and whether the assessee proved the creditworthiness of the creditor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the assessee did not meet the burden of proof to establish the legitimacy of the cash transactions, and the self-serving nature of affidavits without supporting evidence rendered them inadmissible.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeal and procedural status. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of cash deposits and source claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. assessing officer's reasoning for disallowing claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. cit(a)'s confirmation of ao's findings. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments from both parties regarding evidence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. court's analysis and decision rationale. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. final judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. formal conclusion of the judgment. (Para 16) |
ORDER
Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:
This appeal is directed by the assessee against the order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT (Appeals)” pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
2. In the captioned appeal, additional ground raised by the assessee has not been pressed, and therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed.
3. The sole issue challenged in the multiple grounds of appeal by the assessee pertains to the addition of Rs.81,77,000 under Section 68 of the Act on account of cash received from Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta.
4. The brief facts of the case are that during the aforesaid assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer has questioned the assessee regarding a cash deposit of Rs.81,71,000 in three bank account Nos. 03132000001352; 0313000005671 and 0313000012151 of ICICI Bank Ltd. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer (in short (the AO”) that source of the cash deposit was mainly out of cash in hand available with the assessee and that cash amounting to Rs.70,50,000 received as an advance against sale of property from Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta during the financial year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer issued summons to Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta and recorded his statement under Section 131 of the Acton 14.03.2016 which reads as under:
| Q.6 | Please give complete particulars of payment, viz a viz, date, amount, mode of payment, and source of the same |
| Ans. | I have made the Payment(s) in the following manner: |
| S. No. | Amount | Date | Mode of Payment | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1,30,000 | 05.03.2012 | Cash | |
| 2 | 8,70,000 | 04.04.2012 | Cash | |
| 3 | 8,80,000 | 04.04.2012 | Cash | |
| 4 | 3,00,000 | 20.04.2012 | Cash | |
| 5 | 8,50,000 | 20.04.2012 | Cash | |
| 6 | 8,50,000 | 20.04.2012 | Cash | |
| 7 | 3,50,000 | 14.05.2012 | Cash | |
| 8 | 5,00,000 | 26.05.2012 | Cash | |
| 9 | 4,00,000 | 28.05.2012 | Cash | |
| 10 | 8,20,000 | 28.05.2012 | Cash | |
| 11 | 8,00,000 | 28.05.2012 | Cash | |
| 12 | 3,00,000 | 26.05.2012 | Cash |
Q.7 Please state whether any receipt against the above was issued by Sh. Vishwas Kohli. The recipient of the above payments.
Ans. No.
| Q.9 | In reply to Q.9 you have furnished the details of payment(s) made to Sh. Vishwas Kohli. Please state whether you have any documentary proof in support of your contention regarding the source of the funds. |
| Ans. | No I do not have any documentary proof. |
| Q.10 | Please state whether the funds, amounting to Rs. 70.50 Lakhs utilized for the above transaction were accounted/declared for in the relevant year(s) book of accounts/Income-tax Returns. |
| Ans. | I have not filed any income tax return after A.Y. 2009-10 |
| Q.11 | What is the source of cash availability with you. Also file the necessary evidence (Document in the shape of bank account statement from which cash amounting to Rs. 70,50,000/- withdrawn, copy of balance sheet, Income Tax /wealth tax return or any other such document) in support of reply to this question. |
| Ans. | I have sold some unlisted shares in physical forms during F.Y. 2010- 11 and F.Y. 2011-12. Presently I have no documentary evidence of these transactions. |
| Q.12 | Please state what the present status of the property and produce documentary evidence in support of your contention(s) regarding the status of the property. |
| Ans. | The property is still under construction and the possession will be handed over as an when the same will be delivered by the J.P. Associates and necessary documents will be executed at that time only |
5. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the same is as follows:
“3.5 The above reply of the assessee has no force in view of the following reasons:
i) Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta could not produc
