Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
Date of Hearing : 16.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.12.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:-
1. Confirming the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- and invoking of section 115BBE.
2. Confirming the addition of FDR interest of Rs. 95,076/- without reducing interest expenditure of Rs. 61,192 on loan against FDR and invoking provisions of section 115BBE on it.
Sarla Devi Page 2 of 7 3. Confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on widow pension and invoking section 115BBE.
Learned counsel of the assessee drawing my attention towards page 10 of assessee paper book submitted that the assessee husband was died on 11.01.2013 and at the time of his death there was cash in his hand amounting to Rs. 1,85,000/- which was received by the assessee as successor wife. The learned counsel also submitted that the opening cash in hands of Sarla Devi was Rs. 1,20,000/- and in addition to this the assessee withdrew Rs. 10,09,000/- from State Bank of India Hansi Branch and Rs. 1,25,000/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank Hansi and these facts are clearly discernable from the copies of the bank statements available at pages 17 to 22 and 23 to 40 of assessee paper book which cannot be disregarded or dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that hence the total cash withdrawal by the assessee from banks was Rs. 11,34,000/- and in addition to that there was a cash in hand of Rs. 3,05,000/-in her hand including the cash received from her husband after his death. The learned counsel submitted that the assessee being a super senior citizen widow lady is suffering
Sarla Devi Page 3 of 7 with serious diseases which require treatment in the super speciality Hospitals and hence she is required to have ready cash in her hands for any emergency situation. The learned counsel submitted that the cash in hand and cash withdrawn from the banks was partly utilized and partly kept by the assessee for emergency purposes and when the demonetisation was announced then the assessee was compel to deposit cash in hand to her bank. Therefore the same cannot be doubted in any manner. The learned counsel submitted that the assessee is a super senior citizen widow lady serious illness and does not have any other source of income therefore it cannot be presume that the assessee had deposited cash to her bank account out of income from undisclosed sources. The learned counsel submitted therefore the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on account of cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- may kindly be deleted. The learned counsel vehemently pointed out that the Assessing Officer has taken a very unreasonable and unsustainable action while making addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of widow pension and FDR interest on of Rs. 95,076/- specially when the assessee does not fall within the Sarla Devi Page 4 of 7 ambit of taxable limit therefore she was not required to file any return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The learned counsel submitted that the additions made by the AO may kindly be deleted.
Replying to the above the learned Senior DR submitted the assessee did not filed return of income and what was the reason for keeping such huge cash at home was not properly explained therefore the addition is sustainable and Ld. CIT(A) was right in confirming the same.
On careful consideration of submissions, I note that the Ld. Senior DR has not controverted that the assessee is a super senior citizen widow lady suffering with serious illness. It is also not in dispute that the assessee husband expired on 11.01.2013 and cash in the hands of husband amounting to Rs. 1,85,000/- was received by her in the capacity of wife. It is also not in dispute that prior to demonetisation period the assessee withdrew Rs. 10,09,000/- from State Bank of India Hansi Branch and Rs. 1,25,000/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank and these facts clearly discernable from the copies of the bank statements available at pages 17 to 40 of assessee paper book. It is also not controverted that assessee had her own
Sarla Devi Page 5 of 7 cash in hand of Rs. 1,20,000/- and therefore total cash in hand came to Rs. 3,05,000/- in addition to cash withdrawal from the banks amounting to Rs. 11,34,000/-. In my humble understating the cash in hand and cash withdrawal from the banks comes to Rs. 14,39,000/-.In view of above factual position in my considered opinion when the assessee suffering with serious diseases requiring emergency treatment at any time in super speciality hospital then it is incumbent upon the assessee to have sufficient financial resources ready in hands to meet any unforeseen serious situation. In such a position if a super senior citizen widow lady having no other means of income is keeping cash in hand then it would not be taken as doubtful conduct of assessee attracting the rigor of taxing provisions to such amount. Obviously after declaration of demonetization the assessee was compel to redeposit the cash amount with her bank and such a situation the Assessing Officer was not correct in treating the cash deposit as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources. Therefore in view of foregoing discussion I reach to a logical conclusion that the authorities below were not justified in making addition in the hands of assessee. Accordingly
Sarla Devi Page 6 of 7 ground no. 1 of assessee is allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition.
Apropos ground no. 2 and 3, I am of the considered view that the interest on FDR received by the assessee amounting of Rs. 95,076/- and widow pension of Rs. 1,00,000/- was admittedly received by the assessee during FY 2016-17 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 and hence the Assessing Officer is entitled to take in to consideration these amounts. The factum of payment of interest of Rs. 61,192/- on the loan taken by the assessee against FDR cannot be held as adjustable with the FDR interest received by the assessee. Therefore grounds no. 2 and 3 of assessee are dismissed. The AO is directed to recalculate tax liability of assessee, if any, accordingly.
In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2023.