What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant a telescopic benefit of Rs. 1 lakh on cash withdrawals. The issue regarding the source of income from the Bigger HUF was remanded for fresh adjudication after the Assessing Officer gives effect to a previous Tribunal order.

The assessee, a salaried employee and member of an HUF, deposited Rs. 8,96,000/- in cash into her bank account. She claimed that part of these deposits were from withdrawals from the same account and her share of HUF agricultural income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was to determine the source of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, specifically whether they were explained by withdrawals and her share of HUF income.

Smita Dadaso Navale, Solapur vs ACIT | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora

Hearing: 21.11.2019Pronounced: 22.11.2019

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” �यायपीठ पुणे म� । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.322/PUN/2019 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smita Dadaso Navale, At Post Ekhatpur, Taluka-Sangola, Dist.-Solapur-413307. .......अपीलाथ� / Appellant PAN : AGQPN8006K बनाम / V/s. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), ……��यथ� / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri M. K. Verma सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 21.11.2019 घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-12, Pune dated 30.11.2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that except of grounds no.4 to 6 rests of the grounds being legal or other or not press. Accordingly, the rests of the grounds being legal/other/not press are dismissed as such. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to the sources of deposits of Rs.8,96,000/- into the

2 ITA No.322/PUN/2019

bank account with Sangola Urban Co-operative Bank is the solitary issue is to be adjudicated by us in this appeal. Mentioning the facts about the said issue, ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a salaried employee and also is a member of Smaller HUF of Shri Dada N. Navale (HUF). Further, ld. Counsel mentioned that the assessee derives agricultural income of her shares out of Smaller HUF (supra). The assessee deposited cash to the tune of Rs.8,96,000/- in her bank accounts. Referring to the said deposits in the bank account, ld. Counsel submitted that part of the deposits has sources in the withdrawal from the said account in the current year on ad-hoc basis. The ld. Counsel submitted that, out of Rs.2,24,200/- cash withdrawals, a lump sum of Rs.1 lakh can be given a telescopic benefit. Referring to the balance of the deposits and the sources thereof, ld. Counsel submitted that her share of HUF income constitutes the sources.

In this context, ld. Counsel brought our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Nivrutti Navale (Bigger HUF) vide ITA No.367/PUN/2017 dated 15.11.2019. Referring to the directions of the Tribunal, ld. Counsel mentioned that it is finding of the Tribunal that gross total agricultural income of the Maruti Nivrutti Navale (Bigger HUF) has to be quantified directly in accordance with the MPKV data and the same should be adjusted to the deductions, if any, which are specific to that assessee. Subsequently, out of balance, the following ratio 51:49 (49% towards expenses), net income should be quantified before withdrawals for coparcenaries are considered. The available income, if any, should be only

3 ITA No.322/PUN/2019

considered as a source of investment of the said Bigger HUF. Further, ld. Counsel mentioned that if the above exercise given effect by the Assessing Officer to our order, the Bigger HUF shall have exempt agricultural income and the assessee have consequential benefits for reaping. In the process, the assessee will get some relief due to her share of HUF income. The same should be considered to explain the sources of the each deposit in the bank account. In this context, ld. Counsel mentioned that this part of the issue may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication in the matter after complying with the said directions of the Tribunal dated 15.11.2019 (supra).

After hearing both the sides, we find the argument of ld. Counsel for the assessee should be acceptable. So far as granting of telescopic benefit to the extent of Rs.1 lakh out of the cash withdrawals from the said bank account are concerned, we direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.

Coming to the remanding the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with reference to the sourced income of Maruti Nivrutti Navale (Bigger HUF), we direct the Assessing Officer to wait till the Assessing Officer gives effect to the order of the Tribunal (supra) and consider the income, if any. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with set principles of natural justice. Thus, the relevant grounds based on legal issue are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA No.322/PUN/2019

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22nd day of November, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 22nd November, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune. 4. The Pr.CIT, Central, Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

SMITA DADASO NAVALE,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 (2), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments