Mere General Statements Cannot Discharge Burden Under Section 69A: ITAT

ITAT partly allowed the appeal, deleting additions for explained redeposits and marriage gifts but sustaining the remaining unexplained cash deposits due to lack of evidence.

The present appeal has been filed by Shri Abhishekbhai Ashokbhai Patel against the Income Tax Officer, challenging the order passed by CIT(A) dated July 31, 2025.

Background of the Case

The assessee is an individual, and his case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act after information was received that the assessee had deposited Rs.12,27,000 in cash in his bank account during the financial year, despite not filing a return of income.

However, the assessee did not respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer and completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144 read with Section 147.

The assessing officer treated the entire cash deposit as unexplained money. An additional Rs. 46,590 was added as profit from share transactions based on broker information, along with Rs. 65 in interest income, resulting in total additions of Rs. Rs. 12,73,655.

Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld these additions due to lack of documentary evidence from the assessee.

The assessee then approached the ITAT. The assessee stated that the cash deposits were made from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account, family savings, including agricultural income, and gifts received during his marriage in the preceding year.

Tribunal’s Decision

After considering all the facts, the Tribunal found that Rs. 5,96,000 of the deposits were clearly redeposits of earlier cash withdrawals from the same bank account. Since the source was identifiable and supported by records, the addition to that extent was deleted.

The Tribunal also accepted the Rs 1,50,000 (Marriage gifts) explanation, noting that such gifts are common in Indian social customs and the amount involved was reasonable.

However, the Tribunal did not accept the claim that the remaining deposits were from agricultural income and family savings. It also observed that the assessee failed to produce evidence. Mere statements without supporting documents were held insufficient to explain the source under Section 69A.

As a result, the Tribunal deleted additions of Rs.5,96,000 and Rs. 150,000 but upheld the balance addition. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.