Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a retired government servant, appealed against an order confirming an addition of ₹.12,36,000/- to her total income, which represented cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer noted deposits of ₹.19,36,000/-, granted relief of ₹.7,00,000/-, and added the remainder.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a retired government servant, had no other source of income apart from salary and retirement benefits. The cash deposits were likely savings from her retirement benefits and monthly expenses, a common practice for women. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits made by a retired government servant from her retirement benefits and savings are justifiable and not taxable under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Year: 2017-18 Couppammal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50, Nainiappa Pillai Street, Ward 3, Chinnakadai, Pondicherry 605 001. Puducherry. [PAN:ADAPC8638D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 69 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to analyse the cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization period as compared to returned income. From the bank statement furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to ₹.19,36,000/-. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer granted relief to an extent of ₹.7,00,000/- and amount of ₹.12,36,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The ld. AR Shri Abhishek Murali, CA submits that the assessee is a retired Government servant and received various retirement benefits. He submits that against the withdrawals of current year, the Assessing Officer granted relief to an extent of ₹.7,00,000/-, but, however, the Assessing Officer has not considered earlier years withdrawals. He vehemently argued that cash savings of a female employee cannot be ruled out and even homemakers of the government servant always keep cash out of savings from monthly expenses. He further submits that the Assessing Officer did not bring on record any evidence of receipt of any other income from any other sources. The ld. AR prayed to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee is a retired Government servant and retired from Government service. It is clear from the orders of authorities below that the assessee has no other source of income other than salary and receipt of retirement benefits. The Assessing Officer, at para 4 of the assessment order, noted that the assessee got retired in February, 2013 and received ₹.5,59,367/- as gratuity, ₹.3,87,609/- as commutation and ₹.3,39,010/- as leave encashment. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee has not withdrawn any huge amount from her account since April, 2015. In the assessment order, we note that the Assessing Officer did not bring on record withdrawals prior to April, 2015 and otherwise also, it is a general practice of women in our country to keep always savings after meeting house-hold expenses besides cash receipts on various occasions. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 26th September, 2025 at Chennai.