10 December 2025
Case study showing business receipts, cash deposits, miscellaneous payment, as in favour of assessee showing it is done in personal nature and with lack of knowledge and mere rotation of fund
11 December 2025
It is important to note that income tax authorities generally place the burden of proof on the assessee to explain the source and nature of all bank deposits and receipts. Simply claiming "lack of knowledge" or "mere rotation of funds" without substantial evidence is generally insufficient to avoid taxation. However, Indian courts and tribunals have provided relief in specific cases where the assessee successfully demonstrated the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds through supporting documentation.
11 December 2025
Deposits from Earlier Withdrawals (Rotation of Funds)
A common scenario involves cash being withdrawn from a bank account and then redeposited into the same or another account after a period. Principle: Courts have held that if an assessee can demonstrate that cash deposited originated from prior withdrawals from their own bank accounts, it constitutes a "mere rotation of funds" and cannot be taxed again as unexplained income. Example (General Principle): In several Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cases, where an assessee provided clear evidence (bank statements, cash book entries) showing a direct correlation between prior cash withdrawals and subsequent cash deposits, the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) were deleted. The assessee needs to show the trail of funds, proving the amount was already accounted for in previous records and not fresh, untaxed income.
11 December 2025
Business Receipts Already Accounted for in Books
If business receipts were already recorded in the regular books of accounts, they cannot be taxed a second time under a different section of the Income Tax Act. Principle: Double taxation of the same income is not permissible. Example: Cash Deposits from Business Sales Can't Be Taxed Again (ITAT Kolkata decision): An assessee made significant cash deposits which were already reflected in their audited books as sales/receipts, complete with narrations in the cash book. The ITAT held that the deposits were out of accounted business receipts and not unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO's addition was set aside because the funds were part of the declared business turnover.
11 December 2025
Proving Identity and Genuineness of Funds/Contributors
When miscellaneous payments or receipts are involved (e.g., loans, share application money), the assessee must prove the source. Principle: If the assessee provides sufficient details to establish the identity of the source, their financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transaction, the burden might shift, or the additions may be deleted. Example: CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court Ruling/Principle Applied by ITAT): While this case primarily deals with share capital, the principle applies broadly. The ruling established that once an assessee furnishes details of the contributors (e.g., PAN, bank details), the genuineness and source should ideally be examined in the hands of those contributors, not solely in the hands of the recipient company, provided the initial evidence is convincing.
11 December 2025
To succeed with arguments related to "personal nature" or "rotation of funds," the assessee must: Maintain Detailed Records: The most crucial element is a robust set of accounts, cash books, and bank statements that clearly document the flow of funds. Provide Corroborating Evidence: Mere explanations or a "lack of knowledge" defense are usually insufficient. Documentary evidence is mandatory. Reconcile Transactions: Be able to reconcile the deposits/receipts with previous withdrawals, personal savings, or existing accounted business sales. Without concrete evidence and proper representation during assessment proceedings, courts generally uphold the AO's decision to treat unexplained cash as taxable income, often attracting high penalties and taxes.