MRS. KAVERI JOSHI, L/H OF VINOY PANDHARINATH JOSHI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1),, KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 1281/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 December 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the cash deposits however the Ld. CIT(A) considered only one bank account inadvertently and partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition to the extent of ₹ 10,50,000/- thereby sustaining the addition of ₹ 12,75,500/-. In other words, the Ld. CIT(A) considered one bank account on the basis of which the ld CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal as stated above. The assessee has furnished before us all the bank accounts along with tally of cash withdrawals during fina1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, represented by the legal heir of the deceased, appealed an order confirming an addition of ₹ 12,71,500/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act. The addition was on account of unexplained cash deposits made during the financial year 2016-17.

Held

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements and cash withdrawal details, explaining the sources of cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had inadvertently considered only one bank account.

Key Issues

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the financial year 2016-17 were sufficiently explained, and if the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified.

Sections Cited

250, 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : P.J. Bhide, Hemal Mehta, FCAs Department represented by : Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 23.12.2025 O R D E R The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 15.01.2025passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 22[hereafter “the Ld.CIT(A)].

The only issue raised by the assessee in against the various grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 12,71,500/- as made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act.

Mrs. Kaveri V. Joshi L:/H Vinoy Pandharinath Joshi (since deceased) 3. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record, we not that the assessee has deceased and his wife Smt. Kaveri Joshi has been brought as legal heir on record. We note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the addition was made on account of cash deposited during financial year 2016-17 amounting to ₹ 23,21,500/- by the Assessing Officer relevant to A.Y. 2017-2018 which remain unexplained. We note that the assessee has not respond to the various notices as the assessee that deceased who was serving in Merchant Navy. Thereafter, in the appellate proceedings, the all the documents including four bank accounts were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the cash deposits however the Ld. CIT(A) considered only one bank account inadvertently and partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition to the extent of ₹ 10,50,000/- thereby sustaining the addition of ₹ 12,75,500/-. In other words, the Ld. CIT(A) considered one bank account on the basis of which the ld CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal as stated above. The assessee has furnished before us all the bank accounts along with tally of cash withdrawals during financial year 2013-14 and 2016-17 along with bank statements and availability of cash for deposits into the bank of cash withdrawal. After examining these documents we find that the assessee had the sources for cash deposits and has fully explained source of cash deposits into bank account during financial year 2016-17. Consequently, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.