Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a widow whose tax affairs were previously handled by her deceased husband, deposited Rs. 10,88,500/- in her bank account during the demonetization period. This amount was claimed to be from her existing cash-in-hand, which was reflected in her balance sheet. An addition made by the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) through an ex-parte order, leading to this appeal, which was filed with a condoned delay of 28 days.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee's balance sheet clearly showed cash in hand of Rs. 10,88,827.15 and an income of Rs. 1,87,672/- for A.Y. 2015-2016. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had sufficient cash and profit to justify the deposit, and therefore, no addition was warranted. The appeal was consequently allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether an addition made on account of a cash deposit during the demonetization period, claimed from existing cash in hand, is justified. 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sarika Jhawar, Vs ITO, Ward-47(2), Kolkata 24/1, Bijay Krishna Mukherjee Road, Ghash Bagan, Howrah-711101 PAN No. : AIEPJ 4864 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Pransukha, AR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.08.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.
Shri S.K.Pransukha, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Pampa Ray, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 28 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
It was the submission by the ld. AR that the assessee is a widow and her husband was looking after the affairs. The assessee had cash in hand as shown in the balance sheet of Rs.10,88,827.15. During the Rs.10,88,500/- in her bank account. It was the submission that the cash deposit is out of her cash in hand. It was required to be deposited on account of demonetization. It was prayed that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.
It was admitted by the ld. AR that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is an ex- parte order, insofar as the assessee knows nothing about the tax matter as her husband was looking after the affairs. Thus, the addition is liable to be deleted.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld.AO and ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the balance sheet filed by the assessee as on 31.03.2016, at page 18 of the paper book reads as under :-
8. The balance sheet clearly shows that cash in hand of Rs.10,88,827.15. It was submitted that the return has also been filed by the assessee for A.Y.2015-2016. The assessee has an income of Rs.1,87,672/- as shown in the profit and loss account filed by the assessee at page 19 of the paper book, which reads as under :-
As the assessee has shown cash in hand and profit which adequate enough to deposit the amount of Rs.10,88,500/- in her bank account during the demonetization period, I am of the view that no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee and thus, the same is hereby deleted.