POORAN MAL CHAUBEY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD3(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 755/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18) Pooran Mal Chaubey Vs. ITO Near Panchayat, Teh.- Ward 3(4) Chomu, Jaipur 303801, Jaipur Rajasthan �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ABLPC 1770 D Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Sailesh Mantra, CA Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 02.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A), Madurai (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 07-03-25. 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank account during demonetization period

P a g e | 2 ITA No.755/JPR/2025 Pooran Mal Chaubey by rejecting the contention of assessee that same represents redeposit of withdrawals made from the bank account out of Gratuity, Leave encashment, Computed Pension etc. received by him at the time of retirement. 2. That the appellant craves to add, amend, and alter the grounds before or at the time of appellate hearing. 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to, addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in his bank account during demonetization period of Rs.15 lakhs, the source of which allegedly remained unexplained. 4. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before me, was that the addition made was grossly unjustified, since, it had been fairly demonstrated to the Authorities below, that the assessee had made the deposits out of withdrawals made earlier from his bank account; that he was working in Upper Primary School, GauriKa Bass, Govindgarh, and had retired on 31.03.2014, and his only source of income was pension income. At the time of retirement, he received arrears of salary/retirement benefits of Rs.18,60,348/-(Rs.4,25,790/- on 25.04.2014, Rs.9,95,295/- on 26.04.2014, Rs.3,43,533/- on 02.05.2014, and Rs.51,730/- on 17.05.2014), during the financial year 2014, in the month of April and May, and the same was credited in his bank account. That out of this, he had withdrawn Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs in May 2014 itself, and subsequently, when demonetization took place, the assessee re-deposited this amount in his bank account. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that, the assessee was in the habit of keeping minimum balance in his bank account and all pension earned/ any other amount credited in his bank account at all

P a g e | 3 ITA No.755/JPR/2025 Pooran Mal Chaubey points of time was immediately thereafter, withdrawn by the assessee keeping only a minimum balance in his account. This, he stated, was for the reason that he was scared of cyber frauds and therefore did not keep large sums for long in his bank account, and also for the reason that he had a habit of keeping cash with him so as to deal with any unforeseen circumstances, being a retired person.Therefore, most of the money was lying with him in cash and the huge amount withdrawn in 2014 of Rs.15 lakhs also, was lying with him.That when demonetisation occurred therefore, perforce he had to deposit that amount in the bank. To substantiate his explanation, he drew my attention to the copy of the bank statement which was filed during assessment proceedings also, and was placed before me, at paper book Page No.2-21.He pointed out therefrom, that all credits of his bank account were immediately thereafter, withdrawn by the assessee, keeping minimum balance in his bank account at all occasions, which never exceeded Rs.4 lakhs odd, and most of the time remaining at around Rs.1.5-2 lakhs and below. 6. He pointed out, that in the subsequent years, the assessee maintained a balance of only 20,000 odd in his bank account right upto the financial year 2017, withdrawing all credits deposited in his bank account. He contended therefore, that the Authorities below, having rejected his contention of the deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-, during demonetization period, being made out of withdrawals made by the assessee earlier for the reason that the withdrawals were made way

P a g e | 4 ITA No.755/JPR/2025 Pooran Mal Chaubey back in 2014, and there was long time gap of re-depositing the same is unjustifiable in the facts of the present case. 7. Ld. DR however, relied on the order of the Authorities below. 8. I have heard the contention of both the parties. The issue before me, is regarding the source of cash deposited in the bank account of assessee during demonetisation period of Rs.15 lakhs. The assessee has claimed the said amount to have been deposited out of withdrawals made earlier which claim has been rejected for the reason that there was long gap of two to two and half years between the withdrawals of cash and re-deposited in the bank account of the assessee. 9. Before me, the assessee has explained that the withdrawal made by the assessee in 2014 of Rs.15 lakhs, was not a one off incident, and the assessee was in the habit of withdrawing whatever amount was credited in his bank account, keeping minimum balance in the bank account. This fact has been demonstrated by the copy of the bank statement of the assessee, furnished right from the year 2014 to 2017 before me. 10. The assessee has explained the reason for withdrawing all amounts from the bank account and keeping only a minimum balance as for the purpose of securing peace of mind andkeeping cash in hand available at all times, since the assessee was a retired senior person. I do no findany incongruity in the explanation of the assessee. 11. In the light of the facts, demonstrated by the assessee as above, the assessee being in the habit of withdrawing cash from bank account, and keeping it with him, and he had to redeposit the same in his bank

P a g e | 5 ITA No.755/JPR/2025 Pooran Mal Chaubey account when demonetisation occurred, since, otherwise the would have lost its value and the assessee have suffered otherwise, the source of the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee, I hold stands squarely explained by the withdrawals made earlier. No other utilisation of the cash withdrawn being found by the Revenue, I see no reason to dismiss assesses explanation of the source of cash deposited being out of cash withdrawals made earlier as completely untenable. The addition therefore made in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable and I delete the same. 12. In effect, the appeal filed by the assessee is therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

P a g e | 6 ITA No.755/JPR/2025 Pooran Mal Chaubey