SMT. ANJANA GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD- 3(1), KALYAN

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

(A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta 2. At the time of hearing, assessee herself appeared before the bench and the information available with her was not in order and since it was expressed that assessee was not in a position to appoint any counsel, the bench in order to assist her in representing the case requested Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA to represent the case on pro bono basis and the bench is appreciated the service of Shri Bhupendra Shah to represent her case and at the time of hearing he has brought to our notice facts and relevant information.

“1. I am a housewife however I have taken home tuition and my income was below taxable limit.

(A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta 2. I had done the saving of Rs.1184407/- through FDR No. 33388327362, 30557070899 and 30585543786 of SBI/Kalyan branch and these FDRs were created over a period of time in the last 10-15 years which was getting renewed periodically.

3. Amount of these FDRS was paid before maturity and transferred to my account which was withdrawn on 01.11.2016 for marriage of my daughter (Mradul) which was held on 01.12.2016.

4. Rs. 2,50,000/- was again deposited due to demonetization in my Saving Bank A/c No. 10898973722 of SBI/Kalyan (IFSC: SBIN0000399) and same was withdrawn for expenditure of my daughter's marriage.

5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee has filed detailed submissions before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal with the following observations: -

“6.6 In view of the inconsistencies in the appellants submissions discussed above I find that the amounts deposited by the appellant into her account in December, 2016 are not fully explained. Her submission that Rs 2.50 lakhs belonged to her mother appears to be an afterthought since in her first reply she had clearly stated that the entire amount deposited in her two bank accounts were from the withdrawal of her FDs amounting to Rs 11,95,000/- She would not have forgotten that Rs 2.50 lakhs belonged to her mother or mother in law (fact could not be established in any case). Accordingly it is (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta held that the total deposits belonged to the appellant only. As discussed in para ii above the cash in hand with the appellant after deposits on 16.11.2016 and 19.11.2016 was Rs 2,84,000/-. If benefit of doubt is given to the appellant that she did not spend any thing further out of this amount on her daughters marriage on 1.12.2016 then out of the total deposits of Rs 5,34,000 on 5.12.2016 and 23.11.2016 only Rs 2.50.000/- remains unaccounted. Accordingly, addition of Rs 2.50.000/- is confirmed. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed.”

6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: -.

“1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) NFAC dt.23.09.2022 is bad both in the eye of Law and on facts. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the part addition of Rs. 250000.00 out of total addition of Rs. 534000.00 on account of old cash deposit (SBN) in the Bank Account U/s 69A of 1. Tax Act as unexplained money. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that old cash (SBN) has been deposit in the bank account out of earlier withdrawn in the bank account of Rs. 1195000.00 on 01.11.2016 due to demonetization of currency on 08.11.2016 as money which is withdrawal for the marriage of her daughter held on 01.12.2016. The said money unused after 09.11.2016 and required exchange from the Bank. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.250000.00 despite the strong evidence and fact of the case. (ii) That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the addition in gross violation of the principle of consistency.

4. That out of total withdrawal cash money from bank on 01.11.2016 Rs. 11,95,000.00 money partly utilized between 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 Rs. 4,11,000.00 being expenses incurred in marriage expenses, shopping etc for daughter marriage and balance old currency Rs. 7,84,000.00 redeposit in bank account out (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta of which AO treated Rs. 5,34,000.00 as unexplained U/s 69A and learned CIT(A) allowed relief Rs. 2,84,000.00 while all the SBN old currency note deposit out of genuine and valid sources being withdrawal from Bank Account on 01.11.2016 and fully explained hence balance addition of Rs. 2,50,000.00 deserved to be deleted.

5. That the learned ITO / AO erred in law by levying Income Tax @ 60% with Sur Charge of 25% on the Addition of RS. 5,34,000.00 which is now restrict to Rs. 2,50,000.00 by CIT(A) as per section 115BBE as against the applicable rate of 30% as amendment to section 115BBE cannot be made applicable retrospectively.

6. The Applicant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

7. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that the assessee is housewife and earns income through home tuition and she has saved the money for her daughter marriage which took place on 01.12.2016 at Tehsil-Agra, Uttar Pradesh and she has withdrawn ₹.11,95,000/- for the above said purpose and she has explained the marriage expenditure and the balance amount was deposited in the bank account and she is not aware of any technical knowledge, has represented herself before the Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A). Before those authorities, she may have submitted various inconsistent statements. However, he submitted that assessee has withdrawn the money and spent the money in marriage of her daughter and it is common practice in Indian marriage of getting “kanyadhan” and other gifts during the marriage and it is fact on record that after the marriage assessee has excess money with her which assessee has (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta deposited in Bank of India, Etah Branch, U.P and further she has deposited certain money received from her mother and assessee has filed the affidavit/confirmation from her mother which is placed on record at Page No. 13 of the Paper Book and further, he brought to our notice Page No.1 of the Paper Book which is synopsis filed by the assessee.

8. Ld. AR further brought to our notice Instruction No. 3/2017 of the CBDT as per which an individual not having any business income, no further verification is required to be made if total cash deposits is upto ₹.2.5 lakhs. In the case of taxpayer above 70 years of age, the limit is ₹.5.0 lakhs per person. In the given case assessee has alleged to have deposited of ₹.2.5 Lakhs which is less than the limit of ₹.5.0 Lakhs per person. Therefore, he prayed that the addition proposed by the Assessing Officer may be disallowed.

9. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the various inconsistencies in the submissions made by the assessee, therefore he relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that after considering the various submissions made by the (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta assessee the Assessing Officer has made the addition of ₹.5,34,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. However, the same is reduced by the Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of ₹.2.50 lakhs by not agreeing with the submissions of the assessee that this money was from her mother. Before us, at the time of hearing assessee has filed an affidavit/confirmation that assessee’s mother has given ₹.2.5 lakhs to her daughter. Further, we observe that assessee has deposited excess money after the completion of her daughter marriage and the disputed amount is only ₹.2.5 lakhs which is less than the amount specified in Instruction NO. 3/2017 by CBDT in relation to cash deposits during demonetization period. Considering overall facts on record, in our considered view, the cash deposited by the assessee is within the limit prescribed under above said instructions of the CBDT. Therefore, the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is accordingly deleted and the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed.