Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 25,15,700/- made by lower authorities as unexplained cash deposits in her joint bank account with her husband for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147.
Held
The tribunal deleted the addition, noting that the reopening under Section 148 was initially against the assessee's husband, and the amount was added to her income based only on his statement. There was no indication in assessment or appellate findings that the assessee herself made the impugned cash deposits.
Key Issues
Whether unexplained cash deposits in a joint bank account, where reopening was initiated against the husband, can be added to the assessee's income without evidence of her making the deposits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ruchika Narang, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 127, Sector-7A, Faridabad, Ward-II(2), Haryana-121006 Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADSPN9653R Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068518261(1) dated 10.09.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly added cash deposits of Rs.25,15,700/- made by the assessee in her joint bank account maintained her husband, as unexplained, in the course of assessment framed on 28.10.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Ruchika Narang 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. I find no reason to sustain the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that the learned departmental authorities had firstly initiated section 148 reopening against the assessee’s husband Sh. Sumit Narang alleging him to have made the impugned entire cash deposits; and, thereafter, they have added the very sum in her hands based on the former’s statement only. It is further reiterated that there is no indication either in the assessment or in the lower appellate findings that the assessee had made the impugned cash deposits in the above joint bank account. That being the case, I hereby delete the impugned addition in very terms.