What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not fully reconcile all withdrawals and the parents' agricultural income was not substantiated with their own filings. Therefore, a partial addition was deemed appropriate.

The assessee challenged the lower authorities' decision to treat cash deposits of Rs. 24.50 lakhs as unexplained. The assessee attributed the source to opening balance, father's agricultural income, mother's cash in hand, and her own withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were adequately explained by the sources provided, and if not, what portion of the deposits should be treated as unexplained income.

Minal Pndurang Marathe, Dhule vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2022

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

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Prayag jha

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Din No. ITBA/NFAC/AC/S/ 250/2021- 22/1034442594(1) involving proceedings under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

Heard both parties. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive ground pleaded in this instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action treating her cash deposits of Rs.24.50 lakhs as unexplained in the course of assessment dt. 12-12-2019 as upheld in the lower authorities order.

A perusal of the lower authorities detailed discussion suggests that assessee has attributed source of the impugned cash deposits of Rs.24.50 lakhs to her opening balance of Rs.8.50 lakhs, her father’s agricultural income of Rs.9.00 lakhs, diseased mother’s cash in hand of Rs.5.00 lakhs and her own withdrawals amounting to Rs.6,72,410/- (in preceding assessment years); respectively. Mr. Desai could hardly rebut the assessee’s arguments that her parents owned agricultural lands in the State of Maharashtra giving rise to agricultural income from sale of various agro products. This is coupled with the fact that there is no other indication in the case file that the assessee’s parents has deposited any cash or claimed agricultural income in their respective hands. The fact also remains that the assessee has not been able to reconcile each and every withdrawal in her own hands as well as in case of the parents by filing all the relevant details. It is made clear that what all she has done is to place on record withdrawal entries of herself and her mother since assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12; respectively involving Rs.6,72,410/- and Rs.14,74,500/-; respectively. That being the case, I conclude that neither party’s submissions deserve to be accepted in entirety for the foregoing reasons. Faced with this situation, I hold that a lumpsum addition of Rs.12.25 lakhs out of Rs.24.50 lakhs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly.

Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assesee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th May, 2022.

MINAL PNDURANG MARATHE,DHULE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, DHULE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments