SUSHILA NANA SAVEKAR,MUMBAI vs. SUSHILA NANA SAVEKAR, BANDRA EAST,MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.473/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2015-16)

Sushila Nana Savekar vs ITO 1106, 11th Floor, Trishul Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051 Building, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 PAN:AGDPS6514J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Joothawat Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.DR) Date of hearing : 17/06/2026 Date of pronouncement : 23/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2015-16, date of order 19.12.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 15.03.2024.

2 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is 74 year old resident widow senior citizen and retired as municipal employee from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The assessee filed the return by declaring total income Rs.3,75,220/-. The Ld. AO had received the information from Risk Management Strategy (RMS) that the assessee has deposited cash in different dates in the bank account of the assessee. Accordingly, the case was selected for scrutiny and after due verification the amount of Rs.17,63,500/- was added back with the total income of the assessee u/sec. 69A of the Act as unexplained money deposited in the bank account. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted all the details of cash withdrawal and deposit in different bank accounts. The assessee had multiple bank accounts and had withdrawn amount of Rs.42,16,300/-. Out of that the assessee incurred expenses for the daughter’s marriage amount to Rs.24,00,000/- and rest of the amount was deposited in the bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s argument and confirmed the additions. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 146 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee has an opening cash balance on 01.04.2014 amount of Rs.1,01,500/- the cash was duly withdrawn and amount of Rs.42,16,300/- in alleged financial year. But after the expenses incurred related to daughter’s marriage amount of Rs.24,00,000/- the balance amount of Rs.17,63,500/- was deposited in the bank account. The Ld. AR contended that the out of 17,63,500/- the contra entries of same day deposit was amount of Rs.4,47,000/- and the rest of the amount was made within the five

3 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar months difference after due withdrawal the amount. A chart in tabular format is duly submitted which is reproduced as below: Cash summary Period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2020 (Rs.) Opening Cash on Hand -01.04.2014 1,01,500 Add: Total Cash withdrawal during the year. Total 9 42,16,300 Savings Bank Accounts Total Cash 43,17,800 Less:

Daughter Marriage Expenditure Withdrawal 24,00,000 04.01.2016 advance purchase gold ornaments Cash Redeposited:- Contra entries of same day deposits as per excel 4,47,000 sheet attached Cash Re Deposited during the year. Unutilize money redeposited. Total 9 Savings Bank Accounts 13,16,500 17,63,500 41,63,500

Closing Cash on Hand 1,54,300

4 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar

5 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar for a person to keep withdrawals in the bank account for a period of two years. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkataraman vs. CIT, Karnataka-1 (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Karnataka) had taken a view that withdrawals of cash in the past as a source of deposit at a later point of time in the bank account cannot be disbelieved merely on the surmise that it was improbable for an assessee to keep cash withdrawn for two years. The Hon'ble High Court held that revenue authorities were not competent to dictate as to what the assessee should do with the money withdrawn from the bank. The court held that as long as the source is explained and established and if money is withdrawn from SB account and paid to discharge loan by deposit into a loan account, it is not possible to hold that the source is not explained. The Court also held that money might have been utilised in the interregnum period for some purpose and thereafter appropriated towards discharge of loan. But that fact cannot be held against the assessee. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case supports the plea of the assessee. I accordingly hold that the revenue authorities were not justified in rejecting the explanation of assessee with regard to source of deposit of cash in the bank account. The consequent addition made is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed."

6 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar expenses, the explanation furnished by the assessee remained unsubstantiated. Accordingly, it was contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.17,63,500/- under section 69A of the Act. In support of the aforesaid contention, the Ld. DR invited our attention to paragraph 5.2 of the impugned appellate order, which is reproduced hereunder:

“Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 5.2 In these grounds of appeal, the appellant challenge the action of AO for making addition of Rs. 17,63,500/- u/s 69A of the Act. I have carefully considered the assessment order, grounds of appeal, submissions of the appellant and the material placed on record. 5.2.1 The core issue for adjudication is whether the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 17,63,500/- have been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. It is undisputed that the appellant deposited cash in multiple tranches and across multiple bank accounts during the year. 5.2.2 The appellant's primary explanation is that the cash deposits represent re-deposit of cash withdrawn earlier for marriage-related purposes. However, on examination of records, it is noted that the marriage of the appellant's daughter was solemnized on 04.01.2016, whereas the cash deposits in question pertain to the financial year 2014-15. Thus, there is a clear mismatch between the timing of alleged utilization and redeposit of cash. 5.2.3 Further, despite being specifically asked by the AO, the appellant failed to furnish any corroborative third-party evidence such as bills, vouchers or expenditure details to substantiate the claim of utilization of cash towards marriage expenses. The cash summaries and fund flow statements relied upon by the appellant are self-prepared documents and do not, by themselves, establish the nexus between cash withdrawals and subsequent re-deposits. 5.2.4 The pattern of frequent cash deposits in different bank accounts, sometimes on the same day or within short intervals, also weakens the appellant's contention that the re-deposits were merely unutilized cash lying on hand. In the absence of cogent and credible evidence to demonstrate that the cash deposited was the same cash withdrawn earlier and remained unutilized, the explanation offered cannot be said to be satisfactory within the meaning of section 69A of the Act.

7 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar 5.2.5 The contention of the appellant that section 69A is not applicable as she does not maintain books of account is also devoid of merit. Section 69A applies where the assessee is found to be the owner of unexplained money and the explanation offered is not satisfactory. Maintenance of books of account is not a pre-condition for invoking section 69A. 5.2.6 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 17,63,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The addition is therefore confirmed. The grounds of appeal nos. 2 & 3 of the appellant are dismissed.”

8 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar the cash withdrawn was utilized elsewhere or that the cash deposits represented income from any undisclosed source. The addition has been sustained merely on the basis of suspicion regarding the retention of cash for a period of time. Such an approach is contrary to the settled legal position. The Coordinate Bench, in the case of Sampathraj Rakesh Kumar (supra) relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in S.R. Venkataraman (supra), has held that once the source of cash is explained through earlier withdrawals, the revenue cannot reject the explanation merely on the ground that it is improbable for an assessee to retain cash for a considerable period. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the source of the cash deposits stands satisfactorily explained and the revenue has failed to establish any nexus between the impugned deposits and undisclosed income. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs.17,63,500/- made under section 69A of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

9 ITA No.473/Mum/2026 Sushila Nana Savekar Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI