In ITA No.1636/DEL/2020- ITAT - Law does not impose an obligation on the Assessee to discharge the onus to the hilt in every case, says ITAT (Delhi)
Members Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial) & Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant) [23-05-2023]

Read Order: Girdari Lal v. The Income Tax Officer Ward

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, May 24, 2023: The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the onus of proof varies from case to case and the law does not require the assessee to discharge the onus to the hilt in every case.

In the present matter, the assessee, a 92-year-old individual, claimed that the cash deposited in his bank account was derived from the sale proceeds of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, invoked section 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act and made an addition to the income, stating that the source of the cash deposited had not been proven. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against the additions made by the AO. However, the CIT(A) did not grant any relief to the assessee

The bench of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant) observed that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanations regarding the holding and depositing of cash during the assessment year in question. Considering the fact that the assessee was an agriculturist who had sold a piece of land and used the cash for various purposes such as purchasing property in the name of kith and kin and making fixed deposits, the bench agreed with the explanation provided by the assessee.

“It is not uncommon in the Indian Society to withdraw cash and hold a part of it as a measure of an abundant caution on safety. Such approach is more prevalent in rural society to which the assessee belongs to. Having regard to the conventional constructs and postulations which define Indian socio-eco structure, the explanation of the assessee is not quite hard to perceive,” said the bench.