SUREKHA SUBHASH PARVE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD - 4(5), PUNE

ITA 3137/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 October 2026AY 2016-1716 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that Section 69A applies when an assessee is found to be the owner of unexplained money, and either offers no explanation or an unsatisfactory one. However, it also highlighted that the provision uses the word 'may', indicating a discretion to be exercised judicially, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the cash deposit was a gift from her late husband to herself and her two minor daughters. It considered the affidavits filed by the assessee and her daughters, along with the husband's death certificate, as having discharged the initial burden of proof regarding the identity of the donor and the nature of the gift. The Tribunal found no evidence to prove the assessee's explanation false. Therefore, it set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Surekha Subhash Parve, is an individual who did not file her return of income for assessment year 2016-17. The department received information of a cash deposit of Rs. 60,07,500/- in her savings bank account. Following notices and non-compliance, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 148A and subsequently issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee eventually filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 12,000/-. She explained that the Rs. 60,00,000/- deposit was a gift from her deceased husband, Shri Subhash Ashruba Parve, for herself and their two minor daughters. The AO, not satisfied with the explanation and lack of documentary proof, made an addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance and lack of evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- treating it as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash deposit of Rs. 60,00,000/- represented a gift from her deceased husband, intended for herself and their two minor daughters. She contended that this amount is not taxable and that the deeming provision under Section 69A, which uses the word 'may', does not mandate an automatic addition. She relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan to argue that discretion must be exercised judicially and that her explanation, supported by affidavits of herself and her daughters, and the husband's death certificate, rebutted the presumption of unexplained investment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)/NFAC, contended that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposit and the nature of the gift from her deceased husband. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-furnishing of requisite information and supporting documents during assessment and appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT-DR

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.07.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 79 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

2

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the impugned assessme

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →