MEENA AGARWAL,DUBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BHUBANESWAR

Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. The assessee and her husband had deposited Rs.4,85,000/- in the joint account maintained with her husband. It was the submission that the husband of the assessee had disclosed Rs.2,49,000/- in his return as his savings. The Assessing Officer had made addition of the entire amount of Rs.4,85,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. It was the submission that the assessee had no other source of income and consequently, demonetized currency deposited with the bank account of the assessee jointly held with her were nothing but the withdrawals of the assessee from their NRE/NRI account.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not been able to explain the source of deposits in the joint account. It was the submission that only one of the bank account was disclosed by her husband.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s order at page 2 shows that in the statement of fact, which has been extracted, it is an agreed fact that both the accounts are joint accounts with her husband, where an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- was deposited with the bank account maintained with State Bank of India and Rs.2,36,000/- was deposited with the bank account maintained with ICICI. The husband is the first holder. The husband admittedly had disclosed Rs.2,36,000/- deposited with the bank in his return. The statement of ld Sr DR is that the husband P a g e 2 | 4 had not disclosed the second bank account in his return. It was questioned to ld Sr DR that if this is so, why the husband of the assessee had not been assessed for the amount in the said account. For this, there is no reply. In any case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is an NRI and is not having any source of income, which could generate such demonetized currency. This being so, the addition of Rs.4,85,000/- cannot be made in the hands of the assessee in any case insofar as Rs.2,49,000/- has been disclosed by the assessee’s husband in his return and the Assessing Officer was very much aware of the same and has recorded at page 2 of the assessment order. In respect of Rs.2,36,000/-, as mentioned earlier, the assessee is the only second holder and addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise, the assessee is an NRI and has no source of income which could generate such demonetized currency. This being so, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) in its entirety stands deleted.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.