GULAB DEVI SARUPARIA,AJMER ROAD vs. DLV-CC-65)(2), JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2023-24)

Gulab Devi Saruparia Vs. DLV-CC-65) (2) 80, Shalimar Bagh Ajmer Income Tax Department, Road, Jaipur Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ANPPS 5298 A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv. (thru V.C.) Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(A) Jaipur-04 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 15.10.2025under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 Gulab Devi Saruparia 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. Non est assessment order without jurisdiction That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Authorities below have grosslyerred in law and facts in passing assessment order u/s 143(3) without making mandatory compliance under section 144B. At the stage of passing draft assessment order the AO assessed the tax and issued demand notice. In the absence of draft assessment order a prerequisite condition according to section 144B(xxi), denied assessee to the chance to contest, resulting significant demand of Rs1073366 that too by including income of Rs1130000 being income related to earlier assessment year included in the income of current assessment year 2023-2024. Therefore, order is without jurisdiction, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice, Thus order is non est.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 Gulab Devi Saruparia

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 Gulab Devi Saruparia assessment proceedings, wherein the date of last operation of locker on 23-04-2019 was submitted to the AO duly supported with evidence by way of the details of locker operation provided by the Punjab National Bank, where the assessee’s locker was situated. The documentary evidence in this regard was placed before us at paper book page No.58 to 59. He pointed out from page 4 of the assessment order, that the AO had noted the fact from the locker operation details furnished by the assessee of the date of operation of the locker being 23.04.2019.,but at the same time, he noted that it was contradictory to what was stated by the husband of the assessee Sh. Chatur Singh during search action. Our attention was drawn to the findings of the AO in this regard at page 4 of the assessment order as under:- While answering the question no. 9, Sh. Chatur Singh himself admitted that the said cash was deposited approx. 9 months before i e. around March, 2022. For verifying the sarne, the assessee was asked to furnish the dated of operating locker with documentary evidence. On going through the locker-operation details furnished by the assessee, the date of operating locker is 23.04.2019 (ie approx 3 year earlier) which is contradictory to the date as stated by Sh. Chatur Singh (husband of the assessee) during search action. 5. That therefore the assesses rejected assesses explanation and held that cash having remained unexplained it was liable to be taxed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6. He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) though agreed that the cash pertained to AY 2020-21, however, he reiterated the findings of the AO.He drew our attention to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard at page 21 to 23 of the order as under:- Adjudication for Ground No.4 to 8 The fact of this ground is that during the course of search on 09.09.2022 in the case of "MDM Group, Jaipur", cash amounting to 11,30,000 was found in Locker No. 233 of

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 Gulab Devi Saruparia PNB, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, jointly held by the assessee and her husband, Shri Chatur Singh Saruparia. The AO treated the cash as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The ground raised by appellant are interrelated. The appellant in these ground has contended that the cash was deposited in the locker on 23.04.2019, which pertains to FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21) and was out of opening cash balance carried forward from FY. 2018-19. The AO made the addition inAY 2020-21, and hence, the appellant's objection that the amount pertains to a different assessment year is factually and legally misplaced. As per Section 69A, unexplained money is taxed in the year in which it is found, unless the appellant can prove it was from income already assessed in an earlier year. In the present case, the cash was found during the search in FY 2022-23 but was claimed to be from earlier savings. However, the appellant failed to establish that the said cash was either taxed earlier or formed part of income disclosed in returns of the respective years. Therefore, the year of taxability is correctly identified by the AO as AY 2020-21, based on the appellant's own submission that the cash was placed in locker on 23.04.2019. The appellant in her explanation relied heavily on cash book extracts showing large opening balances, Affidavit stating that the money belonged to the appellant and her daughters-in-law claiming it to be savings accumulated over time and supported by copies of ledgers. However, the AO has rightly pointed out the opening balances themselves were unsubstantiated. No proof of past withdrawals, identifiable sources, or incomes taxed in earlier years was furnished. The AO also noted continued withdrawals despite large cash holdings, and unusual practice of depositing "personal savings of women" in a jointly operated locker-raise serious doubts on the veracity of the explanation. The AO found affidavit being self-serving and unsupported by independent evidence. No confirmation or income sources from the daughters-in-law were independently vouched. No wealth statements, bank statements or ITRs of family members were provided to demonstrate such large cash holdings. Under Section 69A, the burden of proof lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the asset found. When the explanation is not supported by credible, cogent, and consistent evidence, the AO is justified in treating it as unexplained. The AO also referred to inconsistencies in the date of locker operation. While the assessee claimed the deposit was made in April 2019, her husband stated during the search that it was placed in the locker around March 2022 which creates further doubt. Thus, application of Section 69A is justified Further, while the appellant relied on the decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. [30 ITR 181 (SC)] to argue that affidavit contents must be accepted if not cross-examined, it isimportant to note that the principle is not absolute. Courts have consistently held that a self-serving affidavit can be disregarded if it lacks corroboration or is found to be inherently improbable or contrary to surrounding facts.

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 Gulab Devi Saruparia In the present case, the AO has not rejected the affidavit solely for lack of cross- examination, but for lack of corroborative documentary evidence, inconsistencies in explanation, and improbability of events described Accordingly, this ground is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. It is true that taxation under Section 115BBE must be preceded by adequate opportunity of being heard, as the rate of tax is punitive in nature. However, it is noted that in the instant case, the show cause for addition under Section 69A was issued. Once the income is classified under Section 69A, Section 115BBE applies mandatorily. The AO has included the income under the head "unexplained money", and tax under Section 115BBE is the natural consequence of such classification. Hence, the ground raised on jurisdiction and natural justice is not sustainable. Considering the facts of the case and discussion made above, I am of the view that the addition of Rs. 11,30,000 under Section 69A is legally and factually justified. Further, the claim that the amount belongs to earlier year is not substantiated and the affidavit, unsupported by verifiable evidence, does not establish the source of cash beyond doubt. The invocation of Section 115BBE, though ideally should have been preceded by a specific notice, is not bad in law in the facts of this case. These grounds of appeal No. 4 to 8 are dismissed 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that, since the undisputed fact duly substantiated with third party document was that the assessee had not operated the locker during the year, the cash found therein could not be treated as unexplained money of the assessee for the impugned year in terms of Section 69A of the Act and the addition therefore made to the income of the assessee invoking Section 69A therefore needed to be deleted. 8. Ld. DR however, relied on the order of the Authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions. The issue for adjudication before us is the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in the Bank locker of the assessee amounting to Rs.11,30,000/- during search conducted on the assessee on 09.09.2022. The assessee’s contention is that the bank locker was not operated during the impugned year at all, it was last operated on

P a g e | 7 ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 Gulab Devi Saruparia 23.04.2019, and she duly substantiated the said fact with the details of operation of her bank locker submitted by the bank. We have noted that both the AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not disputed the fact of the bank locker having been operated by the assessee on 23.04.2019 and not in the impugned year. They have only stated that there are inconsistencies in the date of operation of bank locker as per bank and the statement of the assessee’s husband who had stated the cash to have been placed in the locker inMarch, 2022.We do not find any merit in the reasoning of the Revenue Authorities. A third party document, that is a statement submitted by the Bank itself, has verified the last date of operation of the bank locker as 23.04.2019. It is not the Revenues case that the said document furnished by the bank itself is bogus or ingenuine. Therefore, there can be no dispute with regard to the last date of operation of bank locker being 23.04.2019. 10. Having noted so, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the cash found therein cannot be attributed as unexplained cash of the assessee for the impugned year, since it is reasonably proved that the cash pertain to the FY 2019-20 in which it was kept in the locker. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we hold is correct in contending that addition if any on account of unexplained cash could have been made in the hands of the assessee in AY 2020-21 alone. We have noted that even Ld. CIT(A) has admitted to this fact in his order passed. 11. In the light of the same, we hold, that the cash found in the locker of the assessee amounting to Rs.11,30,000/- cannot be treated as unexplained cash of the assessee for the impugned assessment year,

P a g e | 8 ITA No. 1568/JPR/2025 Gulab Devi Saruparia however addition made therefore to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act is deleted. 12. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur