RAJ NATH SRIVASTAVA L/H DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE- 1(3), LUCKNOW

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 29/10/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1072672195(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(A.1) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 07/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.11,72,552/- (rounded off to Rs.11,72,550/-) as against returned income of Rs.4,42,522/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.7,30,000/- was made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits made by the assessee in the bank. Vide impugned appellate order dated 29/10/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29/10/2025 of the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a paper book containing the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side:

(B) At the time of hearing, the learned A.R. for the assessee relied on the aforesaid paper book and written submissions, which are reproduced as under:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

With due respect, it is prayed that Assessee was Retired Income Tax Employee Retired from the post of Supervisor in 1988 and at the age of 89 years, he expired on 03.12.2022. Copy of Death Certificate of Late Raj Nath Srivastava dated 03.12.2022 is at Page- 21 of the Paper book. He is an Old Income Tax Assessee and enjoying Income from Pension, Rental Income and Interest. Copy of Income Tax Return of A. Y. – 2017-18, 2016-17, 2015-16, 2014-15 and 2013-14. Copy of the same is at Page- 12 – 20of the Paper book. Assessee was suffering from severe diseases being severe Heart Problem, Vision of eye problem, Kidney Problem, Lungs infection problem. Type two diabetic and Blood Pressure Problem. In support of the above, we are submitting the copy of Medical Prescriptions, the same are at page- 22 -24 of the Paper book. Assessee family consists of assessee himself (expired on 03.12.2022) and his son Mr. Deepak Srivastava, assessed to tax vide PAN AGYPS5936R. The son of the Assessee Mr. Deepak Srivastava who is (L/H of the Assessee) also bachelor and retired as Senior Gazetted Officer in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. His source of Income is Pension and Interest Income. Assessee’s son Mr. Deepak Srivastava was living jointly with Assessee, there is no other family members. The Assessee’s son Mr. Deepak Srivastava also contributing Cash Funds (being withdrawal from his Saving Bank Account in which Salary Income was duly credited to Assessee) to meetout towards medical needs of the Assessee and for Household expenses. We are s submitting Copy of Return of Shri Deepak Srivastava (Son and Legal Heir of the Assessee) for A. Y. 2017-18, 2016-17& 2015-16. The same are at Page – 25 - 27 of the paper book. The details of taxable income of Deepak Srivastava of this year and last two years are as under Assessment Year Taxable Income 2017-18 2014460.00 2016-17 1782620.00 2015-16 1598560.00 Due to old age and severe health problem as stated above, assessee was keeping more Cash balance as Cash-in-hand in his custody for safety and for emergency medical problems. The cash was available out of 'Cash Rental Income', 'withdrawal from Bank', 'out of earlier year savings', and 'Cash withdrawal from Bank by his son Mr. Deepak Srivastava' kept with Assessee for medical urgency, Safe custody and for house hold expenses. The Detail of cash withdrawal by Assessee from his Bank Account with Canara Bank, Account No. 2611101000130 is as under DETAILS OF CASH WITHDRAWAL BY ASSESSEE FROM CANARA BANK, ACCOUNT NO. 2611101000130.

DATE AMOUNT DATE AMOUNT 28.08.2012 12250 04.09.2012 9000 04.09.2012 10900 10.09.2012 16500 01.10.2012 6800 08.10.2012 20000 1610.2012 5500 01.11.2012 4600 02.11.2012 5500 05.11-2012 6000 10.12.2012 3600 11.12.2012 4000 17.12.2012 3100 18.122012 17000 28.03.2013 10000 03.05.2013 20000 17.05.2013 20000 04.01.2014 20000 27.01-2014 30000 01.02.2014 30000 12.02.2014 15000 29.09.2014 40000 30-09.2014 6500 08.10.2014 20000 11.10.2014 5000 13.10.2014 10000 01.11.2014 20000 13.11.2014 1500 13.11-2014 21000 13.11.2014 6900 13.11-2014 2000 31.01.2015 5000 TOTAL Rs. 177150 TOTAL Rs. 230500 Grand Total :: Rs. 407650/- Copy of Bank Statement with Canara Bank Account NO, 2611101000130is at Page- 28 – 39 and copy ofBank Statement with Union Bank, Account No. 533602030000297 is at page- 40 - 48 of the paper book. In addition to this the assessee has Cash Rental Income which is as under :-

DETAILS OF RENTAL INCOME OF LATE RAJ NATH SRIVASTAVA RECEIVED IN CASH IN FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE AS UNDER :-

ASSESSMENT YEAR RENTAL INCOME 2017-18 186210 2016-17 185020 2015-16 166120 2014-15 166120 TOTAL :: Rs. 703470 The son of assessee Shri Deepak Srivastava (L/H of Assessee) who is living with the Assessee and looking after the Assessee had made substantial withdrawal from his bank out of his salary income during this year as well as in earlier year. The Surplus accumulated Cash Withdrawal after meeting necessary expenses had been kept with Assessee for Medical Urgency and for Safety purpose. We are submitting the details of cash withdrawal made by Shri Deepak Srivastava (Son / L/H of Assessee) from his Saving Bank Account No. 1010213161615 up to the date of demonetization during this year and in earlier year is as under :-

DETAILS OF CASH WITHDRAWAL BY MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA. SON OF MR. RAJ NATH SRIVASTAVA. [ASSESSEEI. FROM ACCOUNT NO.10102131615 WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. ASHOK MARG. LUCKNOW. WITHDRAWAL DURING A. Y. – 2015-16 DATE AMOUNT 04.04.2014 30000 08.04.2014 15000 15.04.2014 5000 20.04.2014 5000 29.04.2014 10000 01.05.2014 10000 02.05.2014 40000 09.05.2014 10000 28.05.2014 5000 01.06.2014 40000 11.06.2014 5000 29.06.2014 5000 03.07.2014 40000 11.07.2014 10000 15.07.2014 10000 01.08.2014 30000 02.08.2014 5000 08.08.2014 20000 09.08.2014 15000 17.08.2014 3000 23.08.2014 20000 02.09.2014 40000 15.09.2014 5000 23.09.2014 5000 24.09.2014 10000 01.10.2014 20000 06.10.2014 2000 07.10.2014 10000 11.10.2014 10000 18.10.2014 10000 22.10.2014 10000 30.10.2014 5000 05.11.2014 35000 23.11.2014 10000 02.12.2014 20000 04.12.2014 10000 06.12.2014 5000 13.12.2014 10000 21.12.2014 10000 05.01.2015 35000 09.01.2015 5000 18.01.2015 10000 27.01.2015 5000 02.02.2015 40000 03.02.2015 20000 08.02.2015 50000 13.02.2015 5000 23.02.2015 5000 01.03.2015 40000 23.03.2015 10000 Total Withdrawal in A. Y. – 2015-16 785000 WITHDRAWAL DURING A. Y.-2016-17 08.04.2015 20000 01.05.2015 40000 02.05.2015 20000 02.06.2015 35000 07.06.2015 20000 08.06.2015 20000 03.07.2015 35000 11.07.2015 20000 01.08.2015 40000 09.08.2015 20000 14.08.2015 40000 20.08.2015 2000 04.09.2015 40000 05.09.2015 5000 11.09.2015 10000 23.09.2015 10000 01.10.2015 25000 07.10.2015 25000 04.11.2015 25000 09.11.2015 10000 24.11.2015 20000 02.12.2015 20000 08.12.2015 20000 17.12.2015 10000 01.01.2016 40000 05.01.2016 12000 11.01.2016 10000 18.01.2016 10000 26.01.2016 10000 01.02.2016 25000 02.02.2016 20000 01.03.2016 15000 02.03.2016 15000 04.03.2016 15000 20.03.2016 5000 28.03.2016 10000 TOTAL WITHDRAWAL DURING A. Y. – 2016-17 719000 WITHDRAWAL DURING A. Y. 2017-18 03.04.2016 30000 04.04.2016 10000 18.04.2016 10000 01.05.2016 35000 11.05.2016 10000 04.06.2016 50000 27.06.2016 10000 03.07.2016 35000 06.07.2016 10000 11.07.2016 20000 23.07.2016 10000 02.08.2016 20000 03.08.2016 20000 12.08.2016 10000 17.08.2016 5000 26.08.2016 10000 03.09.2016 20000 09.09.2016 25000 02.10.2016 40000 04.10.2016 20000 03.11.2016 40000 TOTAL WITHDRAWAL TILL 03.11.2016 440000 ABSTRACT OF TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWAL BY DEEPAK SIRVASTAVA, PAN – AGYPS5936R (SON / LEGAL HEIR OF ASSESSEE)

ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTAL WITHDRAWAL AMOUNT 2015-16 Rs. 7,85,000.00 2016-17 7,19,000.00 2017-18 (up to the date of demonetization) 4,40,000.00 T O T A L 19,44,000.00 Copy of Bank Statement with State Bank of India, Account NO. 1010213161615 is at page – 49 - 61 of the paper book. On perusal of the above detail it is evident that sufficient cash in hand being opening balance as accumulated savings and out of Assessee’s withdrawal during this year as well as in earlier year and Cash Rental Income, Saving over a period of time and Cash withdrawal by his son Mr. Deepak Srivastava (L/H of Assessee) over a period of time was available to assessee in the shape of savings which were kept by him for medical emergency purposes and for safety purposes to meet out unprecedented medical or other emergencies. Due to Demonetization, the assessee deposited the Cash in hand being accumulated savingsas Opening Balance as well as withdrawals during the year lying as Cash in hand and Cash in hand of Mr. Deepak Srivastava (L/H of Assessee) kept with Assessee for safe custody, assessee has deposited amounting to Rs. 7,30,000/- on following dates during demonetization period which are also stated in the Assessment Order, same are as under:-

Name ofthe Bank Date of Cash Deposit Amount ofCash Canara Bank 12.11.2016 150000 1311.2016 150000 22.11.2016 150000 02.12.2016 17000 Union Bank of India 13.11.2016 150000 24.11.2016 73000 08.12.2016 40000 TOTAL Rs. 730000 Shri Deepak Srivastava son / Legal Heir of Assessee during the course of Appellate Proceeding and Assessee during Assessment Proceeding explained all the details as stated above, however, Ld. C.I.T. (A) without appreciating these evidences, arbitrarily held that Assessee has not provided satisfactory evidence, justifying the source of Cash deposit and upheld the addition of Rs. 7,30,000/- made by Ld. A. O. u/s 69A of I. T. Act. It is further prayed that Assessee has submitted the detail evidences as stated in the present submission before Ld. C. I. T. (A) on 05.10.2024 in compliance to Notice issued u/s 250 of I. T. Act dated 25.09.2024 vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 571686211051024. In addition to this in compliance to Notice u/s 250 of I. T. Act dated 18.01.2021, Assessee submitted compliance on 10.03.2021. Copy of Notice and acknowledgement dated 05.10.2024 is at page- 62 - 64 and Screen shot of response submitted on 10.03.2021 are enclosed at page- 65 - 66 of the Paper book. Following case laws are also relevant on this issue :-

1 In the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, We have heard the parties and perused the Lucknow BenchB, Lucknow, in I.T.A. material on record. In our view, there is no No. 634/LUC/2008, A.Y.- 200506 in sufficient reason for the Department to reject the the case of Shri Anoop Agarwal, explanation furnished by the assessee. Once it Sitapur Vs. TheIncome Tax Officer, isadmitted position that assessee had been filing Sitapur. Return of Income and declaring income to the extent explained by the Ld. A. R. during the last five years then to say that assessee would not Copy of Full case law is at page – 67 have savings out of it would not be believable. The Revenue has not pointed out by collecting – 70 of the paper book. material that assessee could not have saving out of profits earned by him during last 5 - 6 years. No specific outgoing has been pointed out which could have dried up thesavings of the Assessee. On the face of it, the explanation furnished by theAssessee is acceptable that he had savings out of Profits earned by him during the last 5 - 6 years for which he had filed Return of Income and which were accepted by the Department. As a result, the addition proposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is deleted. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed 2 [2025] 173 taxmann.com 96 (Mumbai Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash - Trib.) credit (Demonetization period) - Assessment year IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 2017-18 - Assessee, senior citizen, was a widow 'SMC' and homemaker aged about 80 years - During Hemlata Kamalakar Deov.Income - demonetization, assessee deposited Rs. 13.62 tax Officer* lakhs in her bank account - Assessing Officer made additions to income of assessee under Copy of full case law is at page- 71 - section 68 on account of cash deposits in her 74 of the paper book. bank account on ground that assessee could not substantiate source of said deposits - It was noted that assessee's late husband was a priest and was engaged in 'bhikshuki activities' - After death of her husband, assessee was fully dependent upon lifelong savings which were accumulated over a period out of said bhikshuki activities - Due to old age, ill health and fear of medical emergency, cash receipts were kept at home - When demonetization scheme was brought into being, assessee had to exchange old currency in new currency and in this way, entire life savings of approximately 30 years was deposited by assessee in bank - It was also an undisputed fact brought on record that assessee was residing in a rented room and in such a circumstances it was practically impossible for a widow senior citizen to earn such huge amount of income in one year - Even otherwise cash deposited in bank account during demonetization period had not been withdrawn from account which went to show that it was assessee's own money which she inherited from her husband which had accumulated over years - Whether on facts, impugned addition was to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 6 and 8] [In favour of assessee]. 3 Hon’ble I.T.A.T., Lucknow Bench- (D) Materials on record have been perused. Learned Sr. Departmental Representative has been heard. On SMC, Lucknow, in of the impugned appellate order of the learned 322/LKW/2025, A.Y.- 2017-18 in the CIT(A), it is found that the assessee had furnished Appeal of Sanjeev Kumar Flat No. explanation regarding the aforesaid cash deposit in the 401, Prithvi Sadan, 1-Wala Qadar bank account. The assessee explained that the aforesaid Road, Lucknow Vs. Income Tax cash deposit in bank account was made out of income Officer, Range-4(4), Lucknow. from business activities, and amount provided by parents (senior citizens, who were unable to move out of home) out of their savings. It was further explained that Copy of Full case law is at page- 75 the mother of the assessee was a cancer patient and the – 78 of the Paper book. father of the assessee was also suffering from several physical problems; because of which it was necessary for the parents to keep the savings in cash to face any medical emergencies. The assessee also provided identity proof of his parents and gift deed in support of the claim that cash amount was received from his parents. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s explanation. The learned CIT(A), in his impugned appellate order, has stated that the creditworthiness of the donors could not be established. However, there is no discussion either in the assessment order or in the impugned appellate order indicating that any further evidences were demanded by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT(A) from the assessee in support of the explanation furnished. Notwithstanding that, in any case in the present time and age and having due regard for the financial standing and background and age of the assessee’s parents as well as the assessee himself and also the medical condition of the assessee’s parents, the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits in bank account is found to be satisfactory. The learned CIT(A), in his impugned appellate order, has referred to orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) for the view that when the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed earlier, the explanation furnished by the assessee is found to be satisfactory and therefore, the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT are found to be in favour of the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by learned CIT(A) are deleted. E. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4 In the Income Tax Appellate 3. The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue has been heard and materials on record have been perused. On perusal of Tribunal, Lucknow Bench-SMC, the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated Lucknow, in 14.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), it is found that the A.Y. – 2017-18 in the Appeal of assessee’s submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) are Suresh Chandra Sharma, 414, B- contained in paragraph no. 5.1 to 5.5 which in the ease Block, Panki, Kanpur Vs. Income Tax of reference. It is found that the assessee had withdrawn Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Kanpur. from the bank account, amount total of which was Rs.38,58,500/- as mentioned in paragraph no. 8 of the assessee’s submissions made in the office of Ld. CIT(A). Copy of Full Case Law is at page- 79 Further, it was submitted by the assessee during -82 of the Paper book. appellate proceedings in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), vide paragraph no. 7 of the assessee’s submissions filed in the course of appellate proceedings in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), that the assessee’s wife also provided cash to the assessee out of savings (stridhan) out of funds provided to her for household expenses, as she did not maintain any bank account of her own. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is found that deposit made by assessee amounting to Rs.11,29,500/- is fully explained by withdrawals made by assessee from the bank for household expenses and for marriage of the assessee’s daughter. The explanation of the assessee is further supported by the contention that assessee’s wife who did not maintain any bank account of her own, also had accumulated savings out of funds given to her household expenses, and that she, as a result, had cash in hand as stridhan. Thus, the submission made by the assessee that deposits made by the assessee in bank account is treated as genuinenly explained by way savings made by assessee and his wife. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,29,500/-. Accordingly, the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

(B.1) The learned D.R. for Revenue referred to the assessment order and the impugned appellate order and strongly relied on the same. He contended that the assessee had failed to explain the source of the aforesaid cash deposits amounting to Rs.7,30,000/- made in the bank account of the assessee. He also contended that the assessee’s explanation to the effect that the deposits were made out of accumulated past savings and the amount he received from his son from time to time cannot be accepted.

(C) Both sides have been heard. Materials on record have been perused. It is found from the written submissions (already reproduced in foregoing paragraph No. (B) that the assessee has withdrawn amounts from time to time and after meeting necessary expenses, the remaining amount was kept in cash for medical emergency and for safety purposes having regard to the old age of the assessee, and precarious medical condition. Further it is also seen that the assessee’s son also made cash withdrawals from the bank from time to time. Moreover, the assessee had earned rental income which were received in cash. The assessee himself has been filing return of income and is of sound financial capacity. He was an employee of Income Tax Department, and besides other streams of income, also received pension every month. In view of the foregoing, and after due consideration of the written and oral submissions made by both sides, the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding source of aforesaid cash deposit amounting to Rs.7,30,000/- is found to be acceptable. The Revenue has failed to make a case for addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,30,000/-.

The addition has been made without giving due consideration to the assessee’s financial standing, his son’s financial standing, withdrawals made by the assessee and his son from time to time, the multiple sources of income of the assessee, the old age and the medical condition of the assessee. It is quite understandable that the assessee, due to old age and due to precarious medical condition, kept reasonable amount of cash in hand to meet medical emergencies and to meet unexpected expenses as and when they arose. Therefore, the addition is deleted.

(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2025)