SUNIL RAJNIKANT RAITHATHA,RAJKOT vs. ITO,WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in rejecting ground of

The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows:The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13, on 20/06/2012, declaring total income of Rs. 6,00,210/-. The issue involved in this appeal is that the assessee had deposited the cash of Rs. 12,50,000/-, during the year which are to be disclosed by filing return of income with true particulars.However, the assessee has not disclosed the same by filing return of income, as per the provisions of the section 139 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22/03/2019. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 04/06/2019. During, the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was issued with several notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaires and a final show cause notice was also issued on 16/11/2019. In response, the assessee filed the documents/evidences before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings and stated that cash deposited in the bank account belong to other joint holder. Considering the submission made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and material available on record the assessing

Aggrieved by the said order of assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer, therefore, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the said cash deposits were belonging to his brother, Shri Deepak Raithatha, being joint holder of said bank account, therefore, in view of evidenced furnished to assessing officer which includes copies of bank statement, confirmation of third party from whom cash received and bank pay-in-slip and cheques issued with the signature of joint holder Shri Deepak Raithatha, the addition made by the assessing officer, may be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which I have already noted in my earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

I have considered submissions of both the parties. During the relevant previous year assessee's brother, Shri Dipak Arunbhai Raithatha had jointly held a bank account No. SB 306538 held with Vijay Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot. The said bank account was operated by assessee's brother only, who had deposited cash of Rs. 12,50,000/- in the said bank account. The assessee was served with a letter dated 06.02.2019 from assessing officer calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), wherein, the assessee was required to

I note that if the documentary material establishes that the bank account, though jointly held, was in fact operated and utilised exclusively by the assessee’s brother and that the impugned deposits represented funds belonging to him, then addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee.This proposition finds particularly strong support from the recent decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, ITA No. 41/Ahd/2024, order dated 28.05.2024 wherein it was held that cash deposits in joint bank accounts held with family members were treated as unexplained money under section 69A, however, the Tribunal noted that affidavits of the relatives, coupled with other corroborative material, explained that the money belonged to them. The Tribunal held that affidavits, if credible and corroborated by other evidence, could sufficiently explain the source and that mere suspicion or conjecture could not sustain an addition under section 69A of the Act. Importantly, an amount of Rs.10 lakh forming part of the joint account had also been substantively added in the hands of the assessee's brother; therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition in the assessee's hands. The decision of the Raipur Bench, of ITAT in the case of Trupti Shukla v. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon, ITA No.461/RPR/2025, order dated 11.02.2026, is also directly relevant, where cash was deposited in a joint bank account held by husband and wife, and the wife explained that the deposits had been made by the husband. The Tribunal held that it was not appropriate to fasten liability under section 69A upon one joint account holder when the other account holder 4

Therefore, I find that in the assessee’s case under consideration, it is an undisputed fact that Bank Account No. SB 306538 maintained with Vijay Commercial Co- operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot, was a joint account standing in the names of the assessee and his brother, Shri Dipak Arunbhai Raithatha. However, the assessee has specifically contended that the said account was operated exclusively by his brother and that the impugned cash deposits of Rs.12,50,000/- pertained to his brother. In response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) of the Act, the assessee, vide letter dated 15.03.2019, had furnished an explanation regarding the nature and source of the deposits and had also furnished confirmations of the concerned third parties. The said explanation was further corroborated by the confirmation of Shri Dipak Arunbhai Raithatha himself. Therefore, based on this factual position, I delete the addition.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed.