SHRI UMARBHAI B. NOTIYAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)] erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of cash deposit of Rs. 6,50,000/- in the bank account by alleging that appellant's version of depositing cash out of pension income, retirement benefits and past saving cannot be accepted in the absence of corroborative evidences. The addition retained is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be directed to be deleted.”

In this case, the assessing officer has received information from ITO (CIB) that assessee has deposited cash aggregating to the amount of Rs. 10 lacs in saving bank account in SBS/SBI S, Rajkot. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the act by issuing of notice u/s.148 on 19th March, 2015. In response to notice u/s. 148, the assessee has re-filed the return of income declaring income of Rs. 72648/-. The assessee has derived income from pension of Rs. 60839/- and interest income of Rs. 11890/-. Regarding cash deposited of Rs 10 lacs, the assessee has stated that it is not unaccounted money. In this connection, he submitted that he retired on 18th Feb, 1982 from Gujarat Government’s Panchayat Vibhag as a class 3 servant . He received total sum of Rs. 50,000/- as a retirement benefit, gratuity, leave encashment, PF etc. He further stated that he was living with younger son and received 500 per month from 1982 to 1996 from his five sons as maintenance and thereafter Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance from them for 1997 on-wards. He stated that he was not having any bank account except with branch of State Bank of Saurastra, Rajkot. He has also stated that he has no interest in interest income as he

Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before he ld. CIT(A). the ld. CIT(A) b has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “5. I find that the AO has held the cash deposits of Rs.10,00,000/- in assessee bank A/C to be un-explained. Both during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings the plea of the assessee is that he is a pensioner since 1982 and the said cash deposits were out of his pension, retirement benefits and past savings. The AO has brought out contradiction in submission of assessee that on the one hand he states that he does not trust bank and on the other hand he makes a deposit in a bank A/C. The AO has also observed contradictions in submissions of appellant in his explanations filed on various dates. 6. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions, 1 find that the fact that the assessee is pensioner since 1982 is uncontroverted. It is verifiable that pension receipts and withdrawals are about Rs. 7 lacs over a period of almost 25 years. The yearly pension of assessee 1982-83 was Rs.5728/- and about Rs. 53000/- in F.Y. 2006-07. The -- receipts of Rs. 1000 p.a./Rs. 800 p.a. from his 5 sons initially and 4 sons later is also a fact of record. Even all these sources leave a gap of Rs. 3 lacs which is explained to be out of

During the course of appellate proceedings before us, nobody has attended the hearing from the side of assessee. The Ld. DR has supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). However, the assessee has filed paper book dated 30th Nov, 2017 containing information like copy of order of ld. CIT(A) submission made before the ld. CIT(A) and assessing officer, photocopy of passbook etc. It was mentioned that the assessee is 92 years old. He has been retired as a government servant since 22nd Feb, 1982. The source of cash deposit was amount received from retirement benefit like gratuity, leave encashment, pension received since 1982 and the maintenance amount received from his sons. The ld. CIT(A) observed that some portion of the pension amount and the maintenance amount received could have been saved and deposited in the bank account of the assessee. On perusal of material on record we observed that it is undisputed fact that assessee was receiving pension and maintenance from five sons. We further observed being looking to the age of the person having no other family liability there is possibility of saving from part of the amount received from the aforesaid sources. In view of the above facts and after considering

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.