SARLADEVI SURESH GUPTA,IGATPURI NASHIK MH IN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) NASHIK, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAWAN OLD AGRA ROAD NASHIK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE

BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1360/PUN/2023
Assessment Year : 2017-18

Sarladevi Suresh Gupta,
C/o.S.M. Gupta and Sons
Railway Station Canteen,
Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik-422403
Maharashtra
PAN : AGDPG9296R
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(2), Nashik

Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated
19.10.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment
Order dated 19.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.
2. This is a recalled matter in as much as the earlier exparte order dated 17.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal has been recalled vide M.A.No.41/PUN/2024 order dated 18.03.2025. 3. The only grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing Officer for unexplained
Assessee by :
Shri Parth Bhatt &
Shri Jayant R. Bhatt
Revenue by :
Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Date of hearing
:
09.06.2025
Date of pronouncement
:
16.06.2025
Sarladevi Suresh Gupta

2
cash deposit of Rs.14.50 lakh deposited during the demonetization period.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the facts of the case stated that the assessee is aged about 78 years and filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.3,00,630/- which mainly comprises rental income and bank interest and assessee has also claimed exempt agricultural income of Rs.28,620/-. He submitted that during the demonetization period assessee has deposited Rs.14.50 lakh from the accumulated cash in hand.
Based on this information available with the department, case of the assessee selected for scrutiny and inspite of assessee’s claim that the said sum is out of the withdrawals made in the preceding years, the addition for the total cash deposit was made as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Assessee failed to get any relief before ld.CIT(A).
5. Before this Tribunal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book running into 55 pages drew our attention to the cash book filed at pages 27 to 40 of the paper book. The said cash book has been prepared from April, 2010 till date of deposit. He mainly referred to the cash withdrawals of Rs.5.00 lakh on 20.04.2013 and cash withdrawal of Rs.4,50,000/- on 09.12.2024
which is the main source of accumulated funds along with accumulated cash in hand from past many years used for depositing alleged sum in the bank. It is also stated that assessee’s husband was ill and she needed funds to incur the expenses but later on her husband passed away.
6. On the other hand, ld.
Departmental
Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A).
Sarladevi Suresh Gupta

3
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The only issue is regarding unexplained cash of Rs.14.50 lakh which is deposited by the assessee during demonetization period. Assessee is not into any business activity and mainly earns income from rent, bank interest and agriculture.
No regular books of account are maintained still the paper book showing the cash book has been filed from pages 27 to 40 starting from the opening cash in hand at Rs.5,89,314.99 as on 01.04.2010. Bank statement has also been filed from pages 41 to 51 of the paper book. Ld.CIT(A) has stated that assessee has not furnished these details before the lower authorities. Even in the bank statement, the entries reflected are from 18.06.2013. Main contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that accumulated cash in hand includes cash withdrawal of Rs.5.00 lakh on 20.04.2013 and Rs.4.50 lakh on 09.12.2014. However, bank statement placed before us is also from 18.06.2013 therefore the entry of Rs.5.00 lakh cannot be verified. However, the withdrawal of Rs.4.50 lakh made on 20.11.2014 along with withdrawal made on 19.10.2015 at Rs.1.00 lakh, on 02.11.2015 at Rs.50,000/- and on 30.11.2015 at Rs.1.00 lakh stands duly reflected in the bank statement. These withdrawals of cash from the bank account partially supports the contention of ld. Counsel for the assesse\
coupled with the fact that assessee is a senior citizen and she must be having accumulated cash in hand from past savings including agriculture income. Considering all these facts and being fair to both the parties, we find that assessee has been able to explain the source of cash deposit to the extent of Rs.11.50 lakh which includes cash withdrawals referred above and also accumulated past savings. We accordingly grant part relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.11.50 lakh and the remaining addition
Sarladevi Suresh Gupta

4
of Rs.3.00 lakh stands sustained. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 16th day of June, 2025. (MANISH BORAD)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे / Pune;
दनांक / Dated : 16th June, 2025. Satish

आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

//// Senior Private Secretary

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune