NIRMALA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 40(3), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to furnish evidence that the cash deposits belonged to her son's business. The Assessing Officer was instructed to examine the evidence and decide the issue afresh.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 36.23 lakhs on account of cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank account. The assessee claimed the account was jointly held with her son and the deposits belonged to his business.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified when the assessee claimed the cash deposits in a jointly held bank account belonged to her son's business.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI AAKASH DEEP JAIN & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 14, New Delhi dated 14.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y 2010-11.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without considering the facts in true perspective.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the basis of information of cash deposit of Rs. 36.23 lakhs in the SB A/c of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to which, the assessee submitted that the original return of income filed should be taken as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act.
During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the SB A/c.
On receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 36.23 lakhs found to be deposited in the SB A/c.
Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee strongly contended that the impugned SB A/c pertains to her son Shri Ashish Garg who is staying with her and the assessee is only a second account holder with the said bank account. Therefore, the source of bank deposit should be asked from her son.
The ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee could not adduce conclusive evidence to justify her claim and confirmed the addition.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the appellant is an aged lady and could not furnish necessary evidences, though the same are now available with her, by which it can be shown that the cash deposited in the impugned bank account belongs to the business of the son of the assessee and prayed for one more opportunity.
Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and stated that sufficient opportunities have been given to the assessee but no plausible reply was filed during the assessment proceedings nor before the ld. CIT(A).
We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below.
There is no dispute that the SB A/c was jointly held by the assessee and her son. Therefore, the claim that cash deposited was out of business of the assessee cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidence to show that the cash found to be deposited in the impugned SB A/c was by her son and the Assessing Officer is directed to examine the evidences and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 09.12.2021.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
