Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
“1. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition made by Ld. AO to the extent of Rs. 416,000/- u/s 69A.
Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai. - 2 -
2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in considering the fact that your appellant was not the owner of the money moreover cash has been deposited by her mother late Ms. Jawerben Shivdas Gantra in her own bank account.
3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) sustained the addition merely based on presumption and assumption basis and without considering the factual information.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee in an individual and filed the return of income on 25.07.2017 for the A.Y 2017-18 disclosing a total income of Rs. 8,78,200/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance the assessee has filed the reply on ITBA through e-filing portal. The assessee derives income from house property and income from other sources. The Assessing officer (A.O) find that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 11,60,000/- during the demonetization period and called for the details of sources of cash deposits. In response to notice, the assessee has filed a letter dated 26.06.2019 explaining that the cash deposits in Kotak
Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai. - 3 - Bank account-i was out of her cash withdrawals and whereas in respect of cash deposits in Kotak Bank account-ii of Rs.3 lakhs is concerned, it belongs to assessee’s daughter and supported with income tax return and bank account statement of the daughter. Whereas, Kotak Bank account.No.---942 belongs to assessee’s mother and the assessee is a second holder of the account. The assessee’s mother had expired on 25.09.2017. The assessee has filed a detailed submissions on the sources referred at Para 4.1 of the assessment order.
The A.O considering the information filed by the assessee observed that the assessee has explained the sources of cash deposits during the demonetization period with respect to two bank accounts of herself and the daughter with supporting evidences. However, in respect of the cash deposits of Rs. 6,16,000/- belongs to assessee’s mother. The A.O was not satisfied with the submissions in respect of the sources of deposits of assessee’s mother considering the age and family back ground and treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and made addition to the total income and taxed u/s Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai. - 4 - 115BBE @ 60% and determined the total income of Rs.14,94,200/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 04.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and the facts with respect to the family and has granted relief to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs and sustained the balance addition of Rs. 4,11,500/- and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld.DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
6. We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the grievance of the assessee that the CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,16,000/- u/s 69A of the Act irrespective of the fact that the bank account
Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai. - 5 - belongs to assessee’s mother and who has expired. The CIT(A) has considered the family status and age of the assessee’s mother has granted the partial relief. On perusal of the assessment order, we find the revenue authorities i.e the A.O and CIT(A) have confirmed the fact that the account belongs to the assessee’s mother where the assessee’s is only a second name holder considering the assessee’s mother is a senior citizen. The assessee was a second holder of the account for administrative purpose because of her aged mother. Whereas the assessee’s mother is a primary holder and the cash deposits are out of her life savings and the assessee’s mother has expired on 25.09.2017 and the explanations in this regard cannot be disputed.
We find that the asseseee is a second holder of the account and is not a owner and the cash deposits of the mother are through the convenience of the assessee cannot be overlooked. We considering the facts, circumstances and the family back ground and age of the assesse’s mother who has expired are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is not tenable and is set aside. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing
Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai. - 6 - officer to delete the addition and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.03.2022.