C.K. Ramakrishna v. ITO (2022) 212 DTR 74 / 325 CTR 560 (Karn)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments – Onus is on the assessee to explain the cash deposits and if no explanation is given, the amount can be assessed as assessee’s income. [S. 68, 260A ]

Assessing Officer made an addition of certain sums deposited in the assessee’s bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. CIT(A) held that the provisions of s. 68 of the Act were not applicable but confirmed the addition under s. 69 of the Act. High Court upheld the addition under section 69 of the Act and observed that the onus was on the assessee to explain the source of deposits satisfactorily which onus was not discharged in the present case. High Court further held that the power of CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) could modify the assessment order by making addition under the correct provision i.e. section 69 of the Act.  (AY. 2009 – 10)