GOPA BASU,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(2), HOOGHLY

Though the assessee has raised four grounds of appeal but the only issue involved is against the addition of Rs.15,41,000/- made for unexplained cash deposit in the Bank account. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and a house- wife. No return of income has been filed for A.Y. 2017-18. The ld. Assessing Officer possessed the information that the assessee has deposited Rs.15,41,000/- in the Savings Bank Account with IDBI Bank during the demonetization period i.e. 9th November, 2015 to 30th December, 2016. As far as the assessment proceedings vide dated 24.12.2019, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer treated the alleged cash deposit as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and assessed the income at Rs.15,41,000/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Since the assessee failed to make any submission in support of the grounds of appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer for unexplained cash deposit. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that initially the assessee received notice under section 142(1) of the Act fixing the Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Gopa Basu date of hearing on 16.07.2019 to which necessary compliance was made by filing details, but the same went unnoticed by the ld. ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly. Thereafter assessment proceedings were carried out by the ITO, Ward-23(2) of the Act for which assessee did not receive any information.

As far as the merits of the case are concerned, he submitted that the assessee is a housewife and her husband practice as a Registered Clerk with the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and is a Cancer Patient and undergoing medical treatment since 2005. It is further submitted that the assessee being housewife kept small savings for the purpose of medical treatment of her ailing husband and when the scheme of demonetization was announced, she deposited her past savings in the bank, which were on account of sthree-dhan and this should not be treated as unexplained investment. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench, Amritsar in the case of Sri Satbir Singh Bhullar –vs.- ITO in ITA No. 258/ASR./2022 dated 02.03.2023, Coordinate Bench, Delhi in the case of Om Parkash Nahar –vs.- ITO in ITA No. 960/Del./2021 dated 27.01.2022 and Coordinate Bench, Agra in the case of Smt. Uma Agrawal –vs.- ITO in ITA No. 35/AGR./2021 dated 18.06.2021. Reference was also placed on the documents contained in the paper book containing 74 pages.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the claim of assessee lacks merit since Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Gopa Basu immediately after the deposit of cash of Rs.15,41,000/- during the period 05.12.2016 to 13.12.2016, the assessee withdrew Rs.9,00,000/- on 13.12.2016 and again after deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- between 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016, she withdrew Rs.9,00,000/- on 16.12.2016 and for such withdrawal, no explanation has been filed.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant record placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved with the finding of ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the action of ld. Assessing Officer making addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.15,41,000/- during demonetization period. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a housewife and does not have any regular source of income and also did not file any return of income and the alleged sum was deposited during the demonetization period. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee’s husband is a Cancer Patient and is undergoing treatment in 2005 and thereafter during the year under consideration, expenditure on medical treatment has been incurred.

However, the issue before us is unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period. On perusal of the Bank statement placed at pages 14 to 16 of the paper book, we notice that there is hardly any transaction in the Bank account except for the interest accrued on the bank deposit and all of a sudden Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Gopa Basu from 05.12.2016 to 13.12.2016, i.e. immediately on the announcement of the demonetization, assessee deposited cash of Rs.9,31,000/- and immediately on 13.12.2016, Rs.9,00,000/.- was withdrawn. Thereafter again Rs.6,10,000/- was deposited but on 16.12.2016, again Rs.9,00,000/- has been withdrawn. This withdrawal of Rs.9,00,000/- each creates suspicion, vis-à- vis, the contention made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee stating it to be a sthree-dhan.

As far as reliance placed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on various decisions is concerned, we find that the same were not applicable since the facts are different. In the case of Sh. Satbir Singh Bhullar (supra), the assessee was an agriculturist and owned more than 20 acres of land and the source of cash was claimed to be agricultural income, which is not the facts in the instant case. In the case of Om Parkash Nahar (supra), the source of cash deposit was the consistent cash withdrawal by the assessee during the year in which the cash deposit was in dispute and also in the preceding year. This is also not the case of the assessee. In the case of Smt. Uma Agrawal (supra), the addition was for an amount of Rs.2,21,000/- and the Tribunal deleted the addition observing that it was below the taxable limit applicable for the individual. Therefore, all the three decisions cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable directly on the facts of the case before us and thus will not help the assessee. Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Gopa Basu 10. However, considering the facts of the case, we notice that so far as the cash deposit of Rs.6,10,000/- made during the period 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016, there is a cash withdrawn of Rs.9,00,000/- on 13.12.2016 and for the lack of specific finding by the ld. Assessing Officer as to whether the deposits between 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016 were in old currency or new currency, we give the benefit of doubt to the assessee and hold that the source of cash deposit of Rs.6,10,000/- between 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016 was the cash withdrawal made on 13.12.2016 and thus the addition for unexplained cash deposit under section 69 is uncalled for on the said sum of Rs.6,10,000/-. So far as the remaining amount of Rs.9,31,000/-, considering the fact that the assessee is a housewife and she had kept certain savings for the purpose of treatment of her ailing husband undergoing Cancer Patient. We accept that assessee was having stridhan to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as on 01.04.2016 and further allow the benefit of the minimum non-taxable limit for A.Y. 2017-18 at Rs.2,50,000/- and give further relief of Rs.4,50,000/- as explained cash and accordingly sustain the addition at Rs.4,81,000/- under section 69 of the Act and partly allow the appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Manish Borad) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 11th day of April, 2023 6 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Gopa Basu Copies to :(1) Gopa Basu, 401, Shivam Apartment, 114, Netaji Subhas Road, Serampore, Hooghly-712201