Income Tax

Additions ignoring peak credit amounts to double taxation if there is no material to show cash withdrawals could not have been re-deposited-ITAT

Additions ignoring peak credit amounts to double taxation if there is no material to show cash withdrawals could not have been re-deposited-ITAT 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1082 (2016) (12) ITAT

Brief Facts of the Case:
The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had not disclosed one bank account in her return of income. From the bank statement, the AO found  that the assessee had deposited cash on various dates amounting to Rs.32,36,112/-. The AO further observed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 20,000/- cash in another bank account. The assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposits in the bank accounts and hence, the AO made addition of Rs.32,56,112/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment.

CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO and hence the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal.

Contentions of the Assessee:
It was submitted that the addition of only peak credit of the Bank account should have been made by the AO. He submitted that immediate withdrawal of cash before the deposit of cash in the bank account should have been allowed as a set off.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal observed that there was also cash withdrawals from the said bank account before making of subsequent cash deposit in the very same bank account. The Revenue could not brought any material to show that the cash withdrawals from the Bank account could not have been utilized by the assessee for making subsequent cash deposit in the said bank account.

The ITAT opined that in the given circumstances, addition of aggregate of cash deposits ignoring the earlier cash withdrawals will lead to double taxation of very same amount.

Held:
The matter was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for making addition of only peak credit amount of cash deposit made in the bank during the year following peak credit theory.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

6 days ago