LATE KALPANA ANANT JOSHI ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O WARD-27(2)(1), MUMBAI

order : 07.05.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer who has erred in completing the assessment ex-parte u/s.144 Assessment Year 2011-2012 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer who has erred in assuming that the appellant has already consumed the basic exemption limit and thus has erred in making addition of Rs.1,90,000/-.

3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer who has erred in adding Rs.66,87,751/- to the total income of the appellant as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. On the basis of information received to the effect that the Assessee held deposits INR.66,87,751/- with a bank, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee and noticed under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26/03/2018. Since, the Assessee did not responded to the aforesaid notice, and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide Assessment Order, dated 30/10/2018, under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act after making addition of INR.66,77,751/- in the hands of the Assessee by invoking provisions contained in Section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 25/09/2024. Now, the present appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal against the aforesaid order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above.

2 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Reference Date of Date of Account No. Amount Deposit Maturity (INR.) 1. (FD1) 27/07/2010 02/11/2011 005-038500-051 4,32,786/- 2. (FD2) 13/10/2010 17/11/2011 005-038500-051 2,20,000/- 3. (FD3) 21/07/2010 20/08/2010 5092143074 25,00,000/- 4. (FD4) 21/07/2010 20/08/2010 5092143073 25,00,000/- 5. (FD5) 11/10/2010 13/11/2011 5317516251 10,34,965/- 66,87,751/- 6. We find that before the Learned CIT(A), the Assessee had furnished Banker’s Confirmation Letter, dated 05/02/2019, issued by the concerned bank stating the Fixed Deposits reflected at Sr. No.3 (FD3), 4 (FD4) and 5(FD5) of the table above did not belong to the Assessee or her son. However, the CIT(A) rejected the same observing that it was obligatory on the part of the Assessee for furnish the details and confirmation from the persons who had made fixed deposits using her the Permanent Account Number (PAN). In our considered view, the approach adopted by the Learned CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. The Assessee had clearly stated that the following three fixed deposits (i) FD3: No.5092143074 - INR.25,00,000/-, (ii) FD4 : 5092143073 - INR.25,00,000/- and (iii) FD5 : 5317516251 - INR.10,34,965/- did not belong her. The concerned bank had also issued the confirmation to this effect. We note that the CIT(A) had not doubted the authenticity of the confirmation or the contents of the said confirmation. The CIT(A) declined to grant relief stating that the Assessee should file confirmation from the persons who made deposits using her PAN despite the fact the fact that she had stated in the statement of fact that she was 85 years of age and that did not anyone to take care of tax matters. The very basis of making additions in the hands of the Assessee was the information with the Assessing Officer that the fixed deposits were linked to the PAN of the Assessee. Once the concerned bank has issued a certificate stating that the aforesaid fixed deposits did not pertain to the Assessee, the onus casted upon the Assessee stood discharged. Therefore, in the facts and 3 Assessment Year 2011-2012 circumstances of the present case, the addition of INR.60,34,965/ (FD3:INR.25,00,000/- + FD4:INR.25,00,000/- + FD5:INR.10,34,965/-) made in the hands of the Assessee under Section 69A of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted. It is clarified that the Revenue would be at liberty, as is available under law, to carry out such enquires/investigations/action in relation to the fixed deposits reflected in the PAN of the Assessee but not belonging to the Assessee as per the certificate issued by the bank.