BHARTIBEN CHANDULAL DOSANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KALYAN

3 Bhartiben Chandulal Dosani, Mumbai A.Y Date of filing ITR Form Total Income Income earned of return through household activities 2016-17 24.05.2016 ITR - 2 2,69,970 2,39,420 2015-16 28.10.2015 ITR – 2 2,93,800 2,63,250 2014-15 28.05.2014 ITR – 2 2,45,752 2,15,200 2013-14 05.06.2013 ITR – 2 2,02,600 1,83,787 2012-13 13.09.2012 ITR - 2 1,89,407 1,70,685

Reliance is being placed upon by the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Uma Agarwal v/s. ITO 1(3) Gwalior, (ITA No.35/Agr/2021 A.Y.2017-18), wherein while deleting the additions made by AO on cash deposits made by the woman assessee, the Bench has mentioned:

"The family in which women (such as mother, wife, sister, daughter et al.) are full of sorrow that family meets its destruction very soon; while the family in which they do not grieve is always prosperous....." "From the ancient time, women in India are having special place in family and society. We have many woman as role model in Indian history to a name a few Mata Zizabai (Mother of Chaterpati Shivaji Maharaj), Ahaliya Bhai, Laxmi Bai, Phoole, Anne Besant, Captain Lakshmi Swaminathan (better known as Lakshmi Sahgal), of INA, though were house wife, but had contributed a lot as and when occasion so demanded.Further many housewives had even contributed by way of cash and jewelry during freedom movement....."

On July 13, 1927, Mahatma Gandhi addressed a gathering at the Mahila Seva Samaja in Basavanagudi. Gandhi encouraged women to be change-makers and contribute to the Freedom movement and ITA 35/Agr/2021 9 Harijan Movement by donating their streedhan and other money. Similar call was given Former PM Pt Nehru, during 1962 war thereby calling on 5 Bhartiben Chandulal Dosani, Mumbai the women of India to give their jewelry to the cause. Above said had been recorded here just to show that women in India were always saving some money for the family.....

Before discussing this topic further, it is necessary to comment on its gendered nature. In India, according to the 2011 Census, nearly 159.85 million women stated that household work" was their main occupation, as compared to only 5.79 million men...."

The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important functions. It is a recognition of the multitude of women who are engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social/cultural norms. It signals to society at large that the law and the Courts of the land believe in the value of the labour, services and sacrifices of homemakers. It is an acceptance of the idea that these activities contribute in a very real way to the economic condition of the family, and the economy of the nation, regardless of the fact that it may have been traditionally excluded from economic analyses. It is a reflection of changing attitudes and mindsets and of our international law obligations. And, most importantly, it is a step towards.....

Women (across socioeconomic groups) are often accompanied by male relatives who deal with banking officials to open a new bank account, make deposits, etc. on behalf of their female relatives. Documents carrying the name/signature of a father or a husband are often a requirement. Opening and operating accounts on mobile wallets requires mobile phones (preferably smartphones equipped with access to the internet) to begin with, which several women may not even own. Therefore, in essence, women require the consent of male relatives to access formal financial channels, whereas cash offers them a certain amount of independence....

Women all over the country, had been accumulating cash that they had saved for themselves from household budgets, by haggling with vegetable sellers, tailors, grocers and assorted traders, years of stashing in whatever little cash gifts they received from relatives during festival times and years of 6 Bhartiben Chandulal Dosani, Mumbai tucking away the change they found in the pants that they washed every day, however suddenly they were left with no option but to deposit the amount in the denomination of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes in the banks on account of Demonetisation scheme 2016....."

In the present case the assessee had given the explanation to the AO during the assessment proceedings and had submitted that the amount deposited in the bank, were her money saved by her in last many year's and were kept by her, for herself and for the family in case of emergency need. However, this explanation was rejected by the AO on the pretext the assessce was not having income from any business. However assessing officer has not brought on record any document, evidence etc to show that the assessee was having any income from any other source other than saving from various activities mentioned elsewhere. Further no evidence had been brought on record, AO, in terms of press statement dated 18/11/2016 and SOP to established that the amount deposited in the account was not of the account holder/ assessee but of somebody else. In the light of the above when the AO had brought on record the evidence of proving that the money belongs to other person and not of the assessee, the amount deposited shall not added as income of the assessee.... we are of the opinion that the amount deposited by the assessee during the demonetisation. Cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Hence the appeal of the assessee is allowed .....

In the case Sunil Mathur V/s. ITO (ITA NO.660/J/P2019 A.Y.2014-15) hon'ble ITAT Jaipur has mentioned as follows:

Regarding various observations / objections of the Id. CIT(A), it was submitted that all the objections and observations of the 7 Bhartiben Chandulal Dosani, Mumbai Id. CIT(A) are nothing more than suspicion and rather aimed to reject the contention in one way or the other....

In the case Nandkumar Taneja V/s. CIT (ITA NO.4958/Del/2018 A.Y.2015-16 & hon'ble ITAT has mentioned as follows:

Simply because after the period of demonetization, that is, 08.11.2016, certain amount of cash has been deposited in the bank account, it does not mean that cash-in-hand as on 31.3.2015 and 31.3.2016, duly shown in the balance sheet and disclosed to the department in the respective income tax returns filed much earlier, is unexplained....

In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a suspicion remains a suspicion unless the same is established and can never take the place of reality and for making addition/ assessment of the alleged income, it is for the AO to have proved beyond all reasonable doubts.: the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law, but there the agreement ends; because it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub- section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under Section 23(3).....

8 Bhartiben Chandulal Dosani, Mumbai