DEIVANAYAGAM BHUVANESHWARI,TRICHY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 703/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 July 2025AY 2019-2020Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,23,000/- on account of cash deposits was covered by withdrawals from the assessee's husband's bank account. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return for AY 2019-20. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 after receiving information about an FD of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 55,814/-. The AO made additions of Rs. 98,339/- for undisclosed interest income and Rs. 3,23,000/- for unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 3,23,000/- were sufficiently explained by the withdrawals from the husband's bank account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ (SMC

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 01.07.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

1.

This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

:- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 7 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, the assessee was unaware of order passed by the CIT(A) and came to know about the order passed only on receipt of order giving effect and call for payment of tax. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

The solitary issue raised is with regard to addition u/s.68 of the Act amounting to Rs.3,23,000/-.

4.

Brief facts of the case are as follows: For the assessment year 2019-20, the assessee did not file any return of income. The AO on the basis of information received that assessee had opened a Fixed Deposit (FD) for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and to examine the source of the same issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 27.03.2023. In response to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 09.05.2023 declaring total income of Rs.55,814/-. The AO completed the assessment :- 3 -: u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2023. In the said assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs.98,339/- on account of undisclosed interest income u/s.68 of the Act and addition of unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs.3,23,000/- u/s.68 of the Act.

5.

Aggrieved by the assessment completed, the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. As regards addition on account of undisclosed interest income, the FAA directed the AO to verify the claim of assessee and also deleted the duplication of addition made by the AO. As regards addition of Rs.3,23,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, the FAA confirmed the addition made by the AO.

6.

Aggrieved by the order of FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR had submitted apart from assessee’s own savings, assessee’s husband had withdrawn a sum of Rs.12,80,000/- from his bank account and copy of bank account has been placed on record. It was submitted that cash deposits are out of the same. Therefore, it was prayed that addition of Rs.3,23,000/- may be deleted.

:- 4 -: 7. The Ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and the FAA.

8.

I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued for the reason that assessee had made FDs to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. The assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings had provided the source for making the said FD. Consequently, the addition was not made by the AO. Addition of Rs.3,23,000/- was on account of cash deposits made by the assessee. On perusal of the assessee’s husband bank account, I find there is sufficient withdrawal covering the said cash deposits. Hence, I delete the addition of Rs.3,23,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the FAA. It is ordered accordingly.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st July, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →