SARMILA PRAKASH,KAZIPARA BARASAT vs. ITO, WARD 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income and case was selected for scrutiny as per insight portal of the income tax department and the information received that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 2,55,750/- towards purchase of immovable property and deposited cash of Rs. 13,80,000/- in her bank account during the year. Accordingly, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee, the assessee furnished reply on 19.04.2023 stating that the assessee along with her husband sold an immovable property during the year and entire consideration received by her in in cash and same was deposited in the bank account. Further, vide reply dated 29.10.2023, it was submitted that the assessee along with her husband being purchase other property of Rs. 1,04,75,382/-. Further, on 07.02.2024, assessee furnished copy of bank account in which the cash was deposited. On perusal of the documents filed the AO observed that as per sale deed, the assessee sold property on 07.12.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 25,70,000/- and the assessee has purchased another property for consideration of Rs. 1,04,75,382/- and cash was deposited in financial year 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17and the entire amount of sale

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee observed that the amount has been deposited in the joint bank account and assessee submitted two counts of source of income. On the one hand, the assessee submitted that the deposits are her past savings and on the other hand, assessee submitted that the entire cash deposits may not belong to her. Therefore, the entire amount can be taxed in the

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

None present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the case was heard ex-parte qua the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, the assessee was unable to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 5,63,000/-, the AO has duly considered the source of cash of Rs. 25,70,000/- which was received by the assessee out of sale of the immovable property and assessee purchased a new assets in the joint name and took loan from Tata Capital Finance Limited. Accordingly, he requested that the order of authorities below should be upheld.

Considering the submission of the Ld. DR and submissions of the assessee made before the lower authorities and observation of the lower authorities. I found that here is dispute only for Rs. 5,63,000/- cash deposit in joint bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has explained that amount was deposited out of past savings and in joint bank account the entire amount cannot be taxed in one hand. Looking to the status of the assessee and her husband, who have

Since I have taken the lead appeal to ITA No. 331/Kol/2026 which has been decided (supra) and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Subsequently, filing of ITA No. 381/Kol/2026 and 405/Kol/2026 against the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A) for the same assessment year which is a duplicacy of appeals are not survive. Accordingly, these ITA No. 381 & 405/Kol/2026 are dismissed.

To sum up: ITA No. 331/Kol/2026 is allowed and ITA Nos. 381 & 405/Kol/2026 are dismissed.