POOJA VINESH ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8427/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-2018) Pooja Vinesh Advani, A-2301, EktaTripolis, Siddharth Nagar, Goregaon West, Mumbai-400104 [PAN:AKOPA0733G ]…………. Appellant Income Tax Officer 42(3)(1), Vs Mumbai …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Ashish Thakurdesai & Shri Roshan More For the Respondent/Department : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Date Conclusion of hearing : 28.04.2026 Pronouncement of order : 05.06.2026 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 09/10/2025, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 17/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT- A, ought to have deleted the interest of Rs.4,53,849/- u/s 234B and Rs.12,269/- u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Period Amount (INR.) 9th Nov to 30th Nov 7,27,000/- 01st Dec. to 31st Dec. 10,77,000/- Total: 18,04,000/- 4. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee was asked to provide the source of cash deposits along with supporting documentary evidences. In response, the Assessee stated that cash deposits were sourced out of cash withdrawals made during the Financial Year 2014- 2015 and 2015-2016. The Assessee further stated that during the relevant previous year she had disclosed income under the head salary, income from house property, capital gains and income from other sources and was not engaged in any business during the relevant previous year. However, she was a Director in M/s. Sun N. Star Gourmet Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Phoenix Interplast Pvt. Ltd. A further show-cause notice was issued to the Assessee on 09.12.2019 asking the Assessee to justify cash withdrawals made by the Assessee on regular basis and the specific reason for holding cash in hand over a long period of time. In response to the aforesaid notices, the Assessee filed request for adjournment which was rejected by the Assessing

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Officer. Based upon the material available, the Assessing Officer concluded that the Assessee had failed to provide proper explanation regarding nature of source of cash deposits made in the bank account of the Assessee and proceeded to make an addition of INR.18,04,000/- in the hands of the Assessee invoking provisions contained in Section 69A of the Act holding the cash deposits to be unexplained money.

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 cash withdrawals. Making the aforesaid observations the Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition of INR.18,04,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act and disposed of the appeal as partly allowed vide Order, dated 09/10/2025.

“I. Source of Cash Withdrawal Funds 1. Appellant was an Air Hostess working with Gulf Air and was working till roundabout year 2006 and had her savings from the income from her salary and savings. 2. Appellant had sold house property at Flat 103-B, 1st Floor, Highland Park CHS, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 053 on 5th October, 2013. Property was sold for Rs.1,50,00,000/- out of which Rs.26,00,0007- was credited on 24th August, 2013 and Rs.1,22,50,000/- was credited on 5th October 2013 in the appellant's bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce. 3. Out of the sale proceeds received, following money was invested by the appellant as under: Reliance Mutual Fund Rs.26,00,000/- -28-08-2013 ICICI Mutual Fund Rs.55,00,000/- -10-10-2013 Reliance Mutual Fund Rs.50,00,000/- -10-10-2013 4. We are attaching herewith the bank statement summary for FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17. Bank Summary clearly indicates redemption of mutual funds as the main source of funds and somemoney received from husband Mr. VineshAdvani. 5. Therefore, the source of the cash deposited in AY 2017-18 has been clearly explained. "II. Expenses not incurred on medical treatment of mother 1. Appellant's mother in law Smt. Liloo Lal Advani was aged around 77 years. She was suffering from hypertension, bronchial asthma, Parkinson's disease and chronic stable angina. She also had

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 severe glaucoma which lead to blindness in both eyes as her optic nerve was damaged few years ago. 2. Appellant has already submitted doctor's certificate who was treating her mother in law about her medical conditions and the medical advice which was to undergo coronary angiography, revascularization and then get evaluated for DBS (Deep Brain Stimulus) Surgery which is carried out to manage Parkinson's disease. 3. However, appellant's family including her mother in law considering her advanced age, multiple medical conditions, had preferred medical management. 4. Being 77 years old person with multiple ailments and blindness required full time attendant to her. This was incurred by appellant and her husband from the cash withdrawals done by them over the period. 5. xx xx 6. Appellant has actually withdrawn the cash and kept it at home for the purpose of medical emergency, i.e. if the condition of the mother in law suddenly deteriorates and if certain operation / treatment is required in order to save life. This is a valid reason for keeping the cash in hand considering the overall circumstances under which the appellant and her family were at that point of time. Also the spouse of appellant is businessman and he use to travel hence the appellant is only lady at home to take care of his mother and daughter. III. xx xx

IV. Medical Conditions of mother in law 1. Learned DR had argued that the medical conditions mentioned by the doctor in his certificate are not a nature of chronic disease such as cancer. 2. We have to submit that the patient Smt. Liloo Lal Advani was about 77 years old. She was blind in both eyes, suffering from parkinson's disease, heart condition, hypertension, bronchial asthema. So the eyes, heart, lungs were severely affected, in addition to this she was suffering from parkinon's disease which is a chronic disease and needs constant medical management. Further we have to state as under: 1. We have submitted copy of ledger account of appellant Pooja Advani in the books of Orient Enterprise which is proprietary concern of Vinesh Advani.

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 2. Orient Enterprise accounts are audited and the amount paid from Orient Enterprise to Pooja Advani has been shown as advance given to her and not claimed as expense by Orient Enterprise. 3. Appellant has returned some of the advance money from time to time to Orient Enterprise. 4. Transfer amongst Pooja Advani and VineshAdvani are temporary transfer from one account to other amongst husband-wife and hence tax neutral. 5. Subsequent transfer to the husband's proprietary concern cannot be the basis for addition u/s 69A for unexplained money when the source of cash deposited has been explained by the appellant. Your Honors are requested to take the above submission on record and delete the addition of Rs. 18,04,000/- u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the Learned CIT(A). It was pointed by the Learned Departmental Representative that during the assessment proceedings the Assessee had failed to explain the source of cash withdrawals. Even during the appellate proceedings, the Assessee had failed to furnish documents in support of explanation offered by the Assessee for withdrawing and holding cash for a period of two years. The Assessee had stated that the cash withdrawals were needed for medical treatment of her mother-in-law, however, the pattern of cash withdrawals does not support the stand taken by the Assessee. Further, no evidence has been furnished by the Assessee to show that her mother-in-law was undergoing medical treatment and the Assessee needed cash for medical exigencies. The Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the Assessee has now set up a case that the sources of funds was, in effect, sale proceeds received by the Assessee from sale of Mutual Funds. No such submissions were made before the authorities below and therefore, the Revenue did not have any opportunity to verify the claim now set up by the Assessee. It was further submitted that having failed to furnish this evidences before the Assessing Officer and the Learned CIT(A), the Assessee was precluded from relying upon the same.

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. It is admitted position that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee had sought time to furnish documents/details. The Assessing Officer rejected adjournment application and passed the Assessment Order making an addition of INR.18,04,000/- in the hands of the Assessee under Section 69A of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer the Assessee had failed to disclose the sources of cash deposits. The fact that Assessee was Director in M/s. Sun N. Star Gourmet Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. PhoneixInterplast Pvt. Ltd. lead the Assessing Officer to believe that Assessee had earned undisclosed business income. In Paragraph 5 of the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer noted that cash deposits were followed by cash withdrawals and payment towards Orient Enterprise and Vinesh Advani. During the appellate proceedings, the Assessee had filed Reply Letter, dated 02/03/2024, wherein it was explained that Vinesh Advani was the husband of the Assessee and was engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic bottles, parking frames etc. He had also started two companies i.e. M/s. Sun & Star Gourmet Pvt. Lt. and M/s. Phoenix Interplast Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Assessee was appointed as a Director. However, the aforesaid companies was dormant in support of the Assessee had furnished financial statements of the aforesaid companies for the Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. The aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee was accepted by the Learned CIT(A) as no adverse findings were returned in this regard. Further during the course of the hearing it was submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Assessee that Orient Enterprise was also proprietary concern of Vinesh Advani. Accounts of Orient Enterprise were audited and the amounts paid by Orient Enterprise to the Assessee were in the nature of advance given to her and not claimed as expense by Orient Enterprise. The Assessee has returned some of the advance money from time to time to Orient Enterprise. The Assessee had also explained that her mother-in-law was facing medical issues since 2013. It was stated that

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 since her husband was travelling frequently she was responsible for taking care of her mother-in-law, regular cash withdrawals were made to keep cash in hand to deal with medical emergency. During the appellate proceedings, it was further explained that the sources of funds in the bank account of the Assessee was the proceeds arising from sales of units of Mutual Funds. In response to the query from the Bench regarding the nature of illness faced by the mother-in-law of the Assessee, the Authorized Representative for the Assessee placed on record a Doctor’s Certificate stating that mother-in-law of the Assessee was suffering from, inter alia, hyper tension, and Perkinson’s disease since 2014. As per the death certificate she expired in October 2021. The aforesaid documents support the stand taken by the Assessee to the effect that the money was held for meeting the any medical emergency arising on account of ill health of mother-in-law of the Assessee. We have perused the bank statements furnished by the Assessee for the Financial Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 and the bank summary giving details of redemption of mutual funds. The aforesaid documents support the contention of the Assessee that the nature and source of funds withdraws/deposited by the Assessee was not the undisclosed business income. However, we do find merit in the contention advanced by the Learned Departmental Representative that the details of proceeds received by the Assessee on redemption of mutual funds was not available with the Assessing Officer and the same required verification. The Assessee had, in any case, during the course of hearing, contended that the Assessee was not granted reasonable opportunity to furnish supporting documents during the assessment proceedings as the Assessing Officer had proceeded to pass the Assessment Order rejecting the application for adjournment filed by the Assessee. It was also contended that Learned CIT(A) had rejected the contentions raised by the Assessee without appreciating correct facts and by making incorrect observations that the Assessee had opted not to produce supporting evidences during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Taking into consideration the totality of facts

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 and circumstances in the present case we deem it appropriate to set- aside the addition of INR.18,04,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act and restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after taking into consideration all the details and documents furnished by the Assessee during the assessment/appellate proceedings. The Assessee is directed to file all the supporting documents and details before the Assessing Officer. It is clarified that the Assessee shall be granted reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of aforesaid Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 05.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Rahul Chaudhary) Accountant Member Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंकDated : 05.06.2026

ITA No.8427/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent. आयकरआय क्त/ The CIT 3. 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीयप्रदिदनदध ,आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण ,म ुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file.

आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपिप्रदि //True Copy//

उप/सह यकपुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai