NIRMALA THOMAS,GUDALUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, OOTY

5.3 I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen from the submissions of the appellant that the appellant's account is a joint account and the credits are including the agricultural receipts of her husband Sri Saji Thomas. In this regard the appellant had filed reconciliation statement and the joint bank account copies, ITR filed in respect of Sri Saji Thomas and computation of income.

5.3.1 The appellant had reiterated the facts narrated before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. No new facts were brought on record during the present proceedings. It is a fact that the appellant's husband Sri Saji Thomas has filed the ITR and he is also having the agricultural income. But, the appellant has not proved to the satisfaction of the Assessing officer that the amount deposited in the bank account belongs to her husband's agricultural receipts. Though the AO has asked to submit the bifurcation of the agricultural receipts, the assesse has not provided the same. In order to prove the genuineness of the transactions, the appellant would have filed the land receipts, sale bills of crop, expenses claimed, etc., in the case of Sri Saii Thomas also. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. The onus always lies on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Since the appellant did not come forward with any new facts with supporting evidences/ information responding to the notices issued, I am not convinced with the contentions/ arguments of the appellant in this regard.

5.3.2 After the Department detected cash deposit in the bank account notice was given and the appellant filed submissions claiming the amount as her husband's agricultural receipts. During the scrutiny assessment, she has to file sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim. In the absence of basic proof it is not possible to accept the cash deposits in bank as pertaining to Sri Saji Thomas. The appellant has not filed any such evidence to prove that the cash deposits belong to her husband. In view of the above facts, I have no reason to interfere with the decision of the Assessing officer and hence the addition of Rs.92,95,892/- is upheld. All the Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.

Page - 3 - of 6 3.0 The Ld council for the assessee has vehemently argued that the proceeds in joint bank account belong to her husband Sh Saji Thomas and have been duly disclosed by him in his tax returns . It was argued that the addition in her hands therefore tantamounts to double taxation . The Ld council placed on record a voluminous paper book in support of its arguments. 4.0 The Ld DR supported the order of lower authorities and held the view that sufficient evidences have not been brought on record by the assessee to establish her truthfulness. It was contended that no details of land holding, agriculture sale proceeds etc have placed on records. It was also argued that in impugned joint bank accounts , Sh Saji Thomas was merely a nominee and not a joint bank account holder. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions on the matter in the light of material available on records. The scrutiny assessment was undertaken to examine the veracity of agricultural income of the assessee. There were indications that the income declared during the year was at variance with earlier years. The abnormal increase in the agricultural income prima-facie raises a needle of suspicion about the same being attributable to other sources. There have been variance in the total receipts credited to the bank account viz a viz total agricultural receipts disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has placed on records details indicate that her husband is a regular Income Tax Assessee disclosing Page - 4 - of 6 agricultural income. The assessee has through its paper book placed detailed reconciliation of its agricultural sales at pages 173 onwards. The details of Income Tax Return of her husband for AY-2022-23 is placed at pages 194 to 196 of the paper book. Page 196 shows that gross agricultural receipts were of Rs.80,85,710/-. The argument of the Revenue that the assessee’s husband is only a nominee in the bank account are not correct as the copies placed on page 157 and 167 of the paper book clearly demonstrate that the name of assessee’s husband being Saji Thomas is mentioned as Joint Account holder. True he is also shown as nominee but that cannot be a bar for a person to be simultaneously a joint account holder also. It is not the case of the Revenue that the husband of the assessee is not showing agricultural income or is not assessed to tax. The Revenue on its part has also failed to conclusively prove that the receipts shown by the assessee in joint accounts do not belong to her husband. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order of the lower authorities is not based upon correct understanding and appreciation of the facts of the case. The assessee has been able to place on record sufficient evidences to allude that her husband is disclosing agricultural income and that she is having a joint account with her husband. The order of lower authorities is therefore set aside and the Ld.AO is directed to delete the impugned

Page - 5 - of 6 Rs.92,95,892/-. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed Order pronounced on 21st , November-2025 at Chennai.