NEDUMARAN SANGEETHA,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO WARD-1, DHARMAPURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2111/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 November 2019AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits from her parents, supported by confirmation letters, was not to be disbelieved. The Tribunal considered the amount involved and found no reason to deem the explanation unreasonable.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 10,39,500/- in cash into her savings bank account. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 2,90,000/- to her income as unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were adequately explained by her parents' income and pension. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition without properly considering the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO]

For Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 31.05.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

ITA No. 2111/2019 :- 2 -:

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 2.

‘’1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming assessment of Rs.6,34,130/- adding of Rs. 2.9 lakhs to returned income of Rs. 3,44,130/-, out of cash of Rs.10,39,500/- deposited into S B Account with ICICI Bank Limited, in the circumstances of the case.

2.

Having confirmed by the assessment order the fact that explanations submitted for the sources for the deposits were discussed, the Assessing Officer is not correct in holding without any basis that proper explanation for Rs. 2.9 lakhs was not given..

3. The Commissioner (Appeals), who has “perused the written submissions filed by the appellant” ought to have discussed how they were not valid.

4.

The Commissioner ought to have accepted the written submissions, which explained the sources as funds earned by (i) assessee as a Government Hospital doctor from 2006, (ii) her husband’s income as employee of an Information Technology Company from 2004, in whose name, a house was purchased from S.S. Foundation out of withdrawals and (iii) salary accumulations by both her parents as Government School teachers; confirmations dated 14-02-2018 filed from assessee’s parents before the Commissioner should have been considered.

5. For these and other reasons, which may be stated at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that the additions of Rs. 2.9 lakhs made to income returned may please be deleted’’.

3.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The appellant is an individual and deriving income under the head ‘’income from salary’ and working as Assistant Professor in Government College. The return of income was not filed voluntarily u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’’).

ITA No. 2111/2019 :- 3 -:

Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had come to know that assessee had made cash deposits in ICICI Bank and formed an opinion that assessment escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2017. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 25.04.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.3,44,130/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Dharmapuri passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017at total income of Rs.5,24,130/- by making addition of Rs.2,90,000/- as unexplained cash deposits made in saving bank of ICICI Bank, out of total cash deposits Rs.10,39,500/-.

.Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the 4.

Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that cash deposits were made out of money received from her father and mother, both of them were retired Government teachers drawing pension. However, this explanation was not accepted by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The explanation offered by the assessee in support of the ITA No. 2111/2019 :- 4 -:

source of the cash deposits that money was received from her father and mother cannot be disbelieved in the light of the confirmation letters filed, meagrely amount involved and there is no reason to hold that explanation is unreasonable. In the circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced on 7th day of November, 2019, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →