SANJEEV KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), LUCKNOW

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 14/02/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1073275913(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) In this case assessment order dated 25/11/2019 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.8,00,580/- as against returned income of Rs.2,68,900/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.5,31,680/- was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits made by the assessee in bank account. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid addition was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order dated 14/02/2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) At the time of hearing, there was no representation from assessee’s side. In absence of any representation from assessee’s side, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard.

(D) Materials on record have been perused. Learned Sr. Departmental Representative has been heard. On perusal of the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), it is found that the assessee had furnished explanation regarding the aforesaid cash deposit in the bank account. The assessee explained that the aforesaid cash deposit in bank account was made out of income 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 the mother of the assessee was a cancer patient and the 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.