SMT. JATINDER KAUR PADDA,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43. New Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29.11.2019 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2018. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addiiton of cash depsoit for Rs.58.50 Lacs. Having

heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. It emerges that the assessee did not file return of income but the assessee made cash deposits in SBI, Jalandhar Branch. To verify the same, the case was reopened and a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income and it was stated that the bank account was joint account and assessee’s spouse had deposited cash in the same. The assessee’s husband is stated to have withdrawn this amount from his SB account in the year 2008 which was re-deposited in FY 2010-11. He had advanced amount for purchase of property but the amount was received back and re- deposited in the joint SB account. It was pointed out that the assessee was not present in India at the time of cash deposits. The assessee also filed affidavit of Shri Avtar Singh who apparently returned the advance amount to assessee’s husband. However, since Shri Avtar Singh had returned the amount after gap of almost two years and the assessee did not furnish the bank statement or ITR of that person, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. Finally, the deposit of Rs.58.50 Lacs was added as income from undisclosed sources. The position remained the same during first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not file any corroborative evidences to support its contentions. Therefore, the addition was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We find that the assessee is a non-resident Indian. The assessee was found to have deposited cash of Rs.58.50 Lacs in a joint bank

account which was held jointly with her husband. It is uncontroverted position that the assessee was not present in India at the time of cash deposits. Therefore, it could reasonably be concluded that the cash deposit were not deposited by the assessee but the same was deposited by assessee’s husband. It is also an undisputed position that there are cash withdrawals by assessee’s husband in earlier years which lend certain credence to the claim of the assessee. Apparently, no enquiry has been made by Ld. AO either from assessee’s husband or from Shri Avtar Singh to refute the claim of the assessee. This is despite the fact that the assessee had furnished affidavit as well as Aadhar details of Shri Avtar Singh. Considering all these facts, we are inclined to delete the impugned addition. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 4. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026 -Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 03-08-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH