vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk

0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oJa hjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkb]Z ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyl-a@ITA No.740/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 Shri Bhim Singh cuke The ITO C-24, Ambabari Metal Colony Vs. Ward 4(1)

Jaipur – 302 023 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjl-a@PAN/GIR No.: CFRPS 5909A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri G.M. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 23/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the assessee and is directed against the order of the ld.

CIT(A) dated 23-04-2025 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 and thus therein following grounds of appeal;

‘’1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.11,50,000/- u/s 69A of IT Act on account of deposit of cash in form of SBN during demonetization period, the source of which are appearing in cash book submitted to him and also to AO for relevant year which is inclusive of income earned and accepted in scrutiny assessment.

2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in providing a wrong recast cash books of earlier years in order u/s 250 of I.T. Act by including cheque payment in cash book (separately entered in bank book) and thereby showing minus cash balances in earlier years to prove that cash book as created afterwards whereas fact is that there was no defect in those cash books and also the cash books of current year, which was neither rejected nor provisions of section145(3) of I.T.Act were applied for which reasons appears that both the lower authorities were fully satisfied that the cash balance in cash book on the day of demonetization consisted major sum drawn from bank a/c on 30-03-2016 which was nowhere used nor use proved by the Department.

3. Without prejudice to Ground No. (2) and (3) above, both the lower authorities were not justified in applying provisions of Sec. 69A of Act on bank deposits of SBN whereas on source of money could not be subject matter of application of provisions of Sec. 69A (unexplained money etc.)

2.1 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 15 (Ground No.1), para 16 (Ground No. 2) and Para 17 (Ground No. 3) as under:-

‘’15. Ground No. 1 is against the addition of Rs 11,50.200/- u/s 69A of the Act made by the AO. The appellant claimed that the cash deposits of Rs. 11,50,000/- during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016) were made from accumulated cash on hand as per the cash book, which included Rs. 9,40,000/- withdrawn from PNB on 30.03.2016. for a property deal that did not materialize. In order to explain cash in hand, the tippellant created cash book from 01.04.2014 claiming opening balance of Rs.8.40,115/-. However it is a matter of record that the appellant did not file income tax returns for A.Y. 2014-15 and filed the retums for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 only on 25.11.2016, coinciding with the date of deposit of old currency notes in his PNB account. Furthermore, the cash book purporting to show opening balances from 01.04.2014 onwards was admittedly prepared only after such return filling. Thus, the claimed opening balance of Rs. 8.40,115/- as on 01.04.2014 is without any documentary basis or contemporaneous record. It is a settled law that the onus les on the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposits. In the absence of returns or books of account for earlier years, the opening balances are unverifable. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ashok Kumar [(2009) 310 ITR 328 (P&H)], where it was he