SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(4) KANPUR, KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 19/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 February 2025AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the lower authorities. The assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was not found to be substantiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 11,29,500 in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed the assessee's explanation that the cash was from past withdrawals for marriage and household expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit during demonetization was adequately explained by the assessee. Whether the addition made under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]-10, dated 14/11/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. The grounds of appeal

of the assessee are as under: -

1.

1. Because the authorities below erred in law and on fact in making an addition of Rs.11,29,500/on account of cash deposit by assessee in his Bank account during demonetization period, under section 69A read under section 115BBE of the Act.

1. 2. Because the authorities below failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposit stood properly explained out of accumulated cash in hand from cash withdrawals from Bank and past savings.

3. Because under that facts and circumstances of assessee and his spouse the impugned addition of Rs.11,29,500/is not sustainable in law and on facts.

4. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned addition of Rs.11,29,500/is based on surmises and conjectures and without any evidence.

5.

The assessee craves leave to modify any grounds of appeal

herein before or take additional ground (s) during pendency of this appeal.

6. Any other ground (s) or relief (s) as your kind honour may deem appropriate or fit under the given circumstances.”

Page 2 of 4 2. In this case, assessment order dated 17/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.16,51,450/- as against the returned income of Rs.5,21,950/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.11,29,500/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposit by the assessee in bank. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 14.11.2024 whereby he confirmed the aforesaid addition of Rs.11,29,500/-. Both the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the submissions made by the Assessee that the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,29,500/- was deposited by the assessee in bank account out of withdrawal made in the past for the marriage of the assessee’s daughter and household expenses.

2.1 At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) for Revenue was heard. He relied on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue has been heard and materials on record have been perused. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 14.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), it is found that the assessee’s submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) are contained in paragraph no. 5.1 to 5.5 which in the ease of reference. It is found that the assessee had withdrawn 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). Further, it was submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), vide paragraph no. 7 of the assessee’s submissions filed Page 3 of 4 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. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/02/2025. Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27/02/2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →