JAGADESHWILFRED AMALAHEPHZIBAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-9(1), CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,59,500 made by the assessing officer.

The learned NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,30,500 being unexplained cash deposits in the Axis Bank.

The learned NFAC erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,29,000 being deposit in the Punjab National Bank.

The learned NFAC erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,00,000 representing non cash credits in the Punjab National Bank.

The appellant therefore prays that the addition of Rs. 28,59,500 sustained by the NFAC may be deleted and justice rendered.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual deriving income under head “Income form Housing Property” and “Income form Other Sources”. The Return of Income was filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 disclosing income of Rs.4,97,440/-. Against the said Return of Income the assessment was completed by e- Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 07.12.2022 at a total income of Rs.35,88,750/- passed u/s.143 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.10,38,500/- beign cash deposits in the bank account maintained with Axis Bank rejecting the explanation of the appellant that said cash deposits were made out of gifts received from Shri Jagdish Wilfred father of the appellant and Swadis Bharathi husband of the appellant, accordingly, Assessing Officer treated as unexplained money of the appellant. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also treated cash deposits in the Punjab National Bank out of total cash deposit of Rs.13.29 lakhs, a sum of Rs.5.29 lakhs as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of gifts received from mother-in-law of the appellant Smt.Uma Maheshwari. Similarly, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs.15 lakhs out of Rs.20 lakhs credited in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the explanation of the appellant that said credits represents the gifts received from Smt.Uma Maheshwari mother-in-law by father of the assessee Shri Jagadish Wilfred etc.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, appellant filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs.1 lakh and the balance addition was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by taking into consideration the fact there were cash deposits in the respective accounts of the donors, just prior to the transfer of the amount to the appellant.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the husband of the appellant made a gift of the Rs.7 lakhs to the appellant out of the funds provided by her mother-in-law to her husband and her mother-in-law is working as a Teacher and she had cash withdrawals about Rs.8 lakhs during the year under consideration, out of which Rs.7 lakhs was gifted to her son. And similarly, he submits that the father of the appellant had provided funds to the extent of Rs.2.60 lakhs out of his savings and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) ought not have sustained the addition of Rs.9,30,500/-. Similarly, the father of the appellant had provided funds of Rs.5,29,000/- which were deposited in the bank account. Similarly, he contested that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have sustained the addition of Rs.14 lakhs being the non-cash credits found in the bank account maintained in the Punjab National Bank a sum of Rs.6 lakhs were received from her father Rs.8 lakhs were received from her mother-in-law.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR submitted that the explanation offered by the appellant is an afterthought; no evidence was filed in support of the gifts made to her.

We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposit in the bank account and credits found in the Punjab National Bank. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the appellant the said cash deposits were made out of gifts received from her husband’s father and mother-in-law respectively. The appellant merely made oral submissions without furnishing any documentary evidence in support of the explanation offered. The suspicion was raised in the mind of Assessing Officer about the genuineness of the explanation on noticing the fact that cash was deposited in the respective accounts of the persons, who are stated to have gifted the money of the appellant just prior to the appellant’s account. The appellant had failed to dislodge suspicion. Thus, the appellant has failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the persons who gifted the money. Therefore, the Lower Authorities had rightly rejected the explanation offered and brought to tax the cash deposits as unexplained money of the appellant, therefore, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2026.